"The notion that 9/11 could only have been planned from Afghanistan is self-evidently nonsense" - where then?

Once again, it's inevitable that a well armed, well trained, modern militarised force will get kicked out of Afghanistan with its tail between its legs because of incompetent, morally bankrupt, corrupt politicians.

Who needs terrorism, all the Afghans need to do is invite everyone in for a punch up and then laugh as we retreat to lick our wounds. Humiliated and cowed by a bunch of tribal, ill educated, brutal women haters who obviously have enough courage to defend their lands to the last man.

Our soldiers (and I mean that collectively) are complete heroes, used as puppets to cow tow to the good ole' US of A's morally reprehensible government, for quite what means I still fail to understand.

Terrorism? Not really, as Craig points out, 7/7 and Madrid weren't stopped and I suspect any that were had probably been detected by intelligence. So why not use the Billions poured into Afghanistan to beef up our intelligence services?

Drugs? Hardly, drug production has increased since the war hasn't it?

Oil? Possibly and as far as the Americans are concerned, very likely.

Minerals? Ah! now, this is interesting as the area is immensely rich in minerals and our mobile phones (how many do you have tucked away?) suck up a huge amount of rare minerals as do PC's, LCD TV's and anything else relying on Printed Circuit Boards.

But surely it would be more sensible to negotiate with the Afghans rather than try to obliterate them. But of course, the Afghan's aren't really interested in financial wealth, they are more interested in maintaining their culture, traditions and religions which makes them difficult to deal with. So difficult, in fact, that it's obviously considered worth it to annihilate the population whilst supporting a corrupt 'government' to do its bidding.

I'm beginning to wish that Saddam had kicked NATO out of Iraq. Had he done so none of this would have been likely to have happened.

"The notion that 9/11 could only have been planned from Afghanistan is self-evidently nonsense"

"- where then?"

Wise up brian.

@brian

anywhere else in the world including the USA. 7/7 wasn't planned in Afghanistan. Why do you imaging Afghanistan is the only place in the world with the intellectual wherewithal to plan terrorism? The IRA didn't need Afghanistan.

Here is David Cameron answering the question 'Why are we in Afghanistan?' in the Commons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10312514.stm
He says that the Afghans are yet strong enough to prevent Al-Qaeda returning, but also that he doesn't want British troops to remain longer than is necessary to achieve this objective.

@brian

anywhere else in the world including the USA. 7/7 wasn't planned in Afghanistan. Why do you imaging Afghanistan is the only place in the world with the intellectual wherewithal to plan terrorism? The IRA didn't need Afghanistan.

brian, from the brains of the likes of Mr. Zbigniev Brezynski and fellow Sraussians in the US Government, with the helping hand of policy/history skewers, such Bernhard lewis and Robert Gates.

Every time we nudge up another hundred useless death, the media gets jittery and asks 'waht are we still doing there'.

Still, the geopolitical strategy mongers in lieu with their military vested interest supporters are commanding the media with their ridiculous boistering up of lost causes, still they are talking of being able to afford this and future new wars, whilst the taxpayer is bleeding money, has to take cuts in services and is being taken the p...s out of, with lies of regulating the City and offshore havens.
The Netherlands got it right, they are out of there in August.

This war is seriously challenging global relationships, not just in East Asia, but also between NATO countries, who seemingly ignore the NATO doctrine and walk all over it, the outright refusal of Italy Holland and the US to condemn an attack on a fellow NATO countries sovereignity at sea, ahs shown this clearly. NATO's insides are rotten to the core, not many members agree in supporting the global hegemony of a Leviathan US/UK cabal, hence their stepping back.

Karzai might be gone before this year is out.

@brian

anywhere else in the world including the USA. 7/7 wasn't planned in Afghanistan. Why do you imaging Afghanistan is the only place in the world with the intellectual wherewithal to plan terrorism? The IRA didn't need Afghanistan.

@brian

anywhere else in the world including the USA. 7/7 wasn't planned in Afghanistan. Why do you imaging Afghanistan is the only place in the world with the intellectual wherewithal to plan terrorism? The IRA didn't need Afghanistan.

Sorry, I didn't post 3 times.

Losing? Because we've lost 300 soldiers in almost a decade? Piffle. The US, who are on OUR side, could wipe out that many in three airstrikes if it wasn't for bleeding-heart liberals whining on and on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granai_airstrike

I think that it's high time we used our Independent Nuclear Detergent, and cleaned up this mess once and for all. We could make the whole country uninhabitable for years. After all, this tin-pot country has nothing we want, it's just full of terrorists.

`In at most five years time, we will be gone`

This is all about control of global resources. Remember: President George W. Bush, "If you're not with us, you're against us". The UK will tow the line, there`s too much at stake not to. So much greed in this world, sadly, mankind knows no other way.

Politicians are just a reflection of the people who vote for them.

Redders - I think the database is playing up.

Richard - methinks :)

So Osama Bin Laden wasn't behind 911 then?

"Meet the Afghan Army,Is It a Figment of Washington's Imagination?" By Ann Jones

" When I was teaching in Afghanistan from 2002 to 2006, I knew men who repeatedly went through ANA training to get the promised Kalashnikov and the pay. Then they went home for a while and often returned some weeks later to enlist again under a different name.

"In a country where 40% of men are unemployed, joining the ANA for 10 weeks is the best game in town. It relieves the poverty of many families every time the man of the family goes back to basic training, but it's a needlessly complicated way to unintentionally deliver such minimal humanitarian aid. Some of these circulating soldiers are aging former mujahidin -- the Islamist fundamentalists the U.S. once paid to fight the Soviets -- and many are undoubtedly Taliban."

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175128/will_today_s_u_s_armed_ally_be_tomorrow_s_enemy_

brian

your 1.03 pm comment. Nobody has said that on this thread except you. As usual, the neo-con answer is ti try to derail the thread rather than tackle the arguments.

Perhaps a more useful question would be "Did the planning of 9/11 require any particular facilities or rsources that were only available in Afghanistan" ?

Ms Caroline Wyatt of the BBC aka spokeswoman for the MoD has just said 'they will not be forgotten' as a montage of the faces of the 300 dead faded into the background to the accompaniment of the Last Post.

Followed by the well fed face of Cameroon mouthing similar platitudes.

Total propaganda and hypocrisy.

Cameron is a clueless clown. Nato are already beaten. Them leaving is maybe down to the logistics involved. Once that is done bye bye imperialist dogs. The crimes committed against the Pashtun will not be forgotten for a very long time. They are very good fighters and determined. They know they have won. I'm going to say it again for those who hope for change. U.K & U.S foreign policy is determined by persistence and continuity. It cannot ever change, ever. Those actors will keep doing it, until other countries refuse to buy their debt, and their respective countries collapse.

@Brian

there are many places on earth at least as safe as Afghanistan for plotting terrorism. The plotting of it is merely having the intellectual desire and ability to plan an activity. The perpetration of the act requires explosives, weapons, chemical or nuclear hardware. Do you imagine the people who undertook the 9/11 hijacking brought all the stuff they needed from Afghanistan? Of course not, they bought what they needed in the USA so the whole thing could have been 'planned' in a Manhattan penthouse for all we know. If Bin Ladin was involved it may have been just to say "Lets find something really big to blow up, off you go boys and think about it, get back to me when you've come up with something, here's my satellite phone number, you can reach me anywhere in the world on it."

Craig,

My earlier comment seem to have been deleted, why?

"7/7 wasn't planned in Afghanistan."

The planning for the London bombings went badly wrong because a crucial train was cancelled.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20833633/What-Happened-at-Canary-Wharf-on-7th-July-2005

To all the accounts collated so well by Rory-Duffett, this extra one may be added, which only appeared in July of 2008. Were two or three ‘terrorists’ shot at 10.30 am on July 7th at Canary Wharf? Witnesses recall how this was announced once on a news broadcast that morning, then never repeated.

The original report on Danish news - nyhederne-dyn.tv2.dk/article.php/id-2585568.html - was timed and dated at 5 pm on 7/7/05.

A rather broken English translation -

davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1093691&postcount=457 -

appeared on the 4th anniversary of the event which said:

TV 2/news has just spoken with Marianne Member, who is employed in Access Flooring Company in London. Through employees in its firm she has been told, that at Canary Wharf two were shot and presumed killed.

“They have telephoned to one of our Presidents and told him that they have attended two men be shot dead – deliberately, by the police or soldiers,” tells Marianne Member to TV 2/news. The police rejected at a press briefing, that they had received information that any had been shot.

There was a Radio interview -

religionandmorality.net/DWT/JFetzer.htm

- with Dr Ridley-Duff, see: on Xmas day with Jim Fetzer, ’7/7 London Attacks, Fact or Fiction?’

Please note you may have to format my links correctly to reach the sites.

I would urge all concerned including British Muslims to urgently become interesting in the knowledge you will gain from this post.

The 5th anniversary is due shortly and it is time the bereaved families learned the hidden truth behind this atrocity.

Correction: David Cameron says that the Afghans are *not* yet strong enough to prevent Al-Qaeda returning. :(

Chris,

Craig's post originally appeared twice, I don't know why. Your comment appeared under the copy that got deleted. I was trying to comment there myself, but the page must have been removed while I was typing, as I got an error like "object X does not exist" when I clicked "Post".

The 300th death is a reason to support the proposal for a memorial to the soldiers who have died in Afghanistan (and those yet to die there) which can be seen at the National Portrait Gallery. Steve McQueen's "Queen and Country" makes photographs of each soldier who has been killed into a sheet of postage stamps.

This is one of the most public ways we have of marking significant events. The convention that stamps should not bear the likeness of anyone living (except the monarch) adds a touch of philatelic irony: only deaths make this memorial to the 21st century Afghan War possible.

Two conditions must, however, be met. The Royal Mail needs to approve the project: add your voice at www.artfund.org/queenandcountry. And the war must end. Please send that message to the newly elected Chairs of the following Commons Select Committees:

Defence – James Arbuthnot MP Con N E Hampshire arbuthnotj@parliament.uk Tel 020-7219-4649

Foreign Affairs – Richard Ottaway MP Con Croydon South ottawayr@parliament.uk Tel 020-7219-6392

International Development – Malcolm Bruce MP LibDem Gordon info@malcolmbruce.org.uk Tel 020-7219-6233

Treasury – Andrew Tyrie MP Con Chichester tyriea@parliament.uk Tel 020-7219-6371

Policy and budgeting for the rest of the war in Afghanistan should be the subject of reports by all these committees. Ideally their reports will be coordinated, with evidence taken from ministers and officials in all the key departments.

Those who have phoned or emailed any of these four committee chairs can let me know they have done so by emailing me at biodiplomacy@yahoo.co.uk . That would help me and others trying to apply pressure on these committees.

When we know the membership of each committee (still to be voted on by MPs) that will provide further MPs to target with reasoned and non-abusive letters, emails or telephone calls.

I have deleted a large number of comments related to Brian's attempt to derail this onto a 9/11 discussion and those who rose to it. I may also have deleted a few innocent ons at the same time.

The posting does not argue that Osama did not plan 9/11. It argues that terrorists can plan such things irrespective of whether Afghanistan is available to them or not.

Apologies for "derailing" the discussion, given that 911 is effectively the excuse for our troops to be in Afghanistan I thought my comments were relevant.

brian

apology accepted - let's move on.

The amount of civilian casualties is incredibly worrying, and I wonder why this is. Are many Afghan resistance fighters using civilians to hide themselves, or are most of these genuine errors on the allies' part?

I have retrieved Chris, Glasgow's 12:14 comment again:

Craig,

I think you are absolutely right. The worst thing about all of this is that most afghan people especially in Helmand want International Support to rebuild but don't trust the current government, who are just lining their pockets with a severe disregard for the general population.
We had a construction tema in Helmand that were thrown out of the region because their security killed 9 civilians for no reason. But they will be back because the owner of the firm has a brother in the current government who will make sure he gets back in.
They are just so corrupt and don't really care about rebuilding especially in Helmand. There are a lot of good proposals going to the local government that won't see the light of day because they don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. I would throw them out and a fairer government in but the US have a history of not making particularly good decisions in Afghanistan dating back to the 60's.
One point I would say about Pakistan is that the ISI are currently helping the Taliban in Afghanistan with the belief that when NATO troops leave they will move into control the area in the background. I think that is one of the deciding factors why NATO aren't leaving. We all know that a lot of extremists come from Pakistan.

Chris, Glasgow at June 21, 2010 12:14 PM

R4 SDHC,

the Afghan resistance is probably not structured like a western military, in separate barracks and 'compounds'. Craig describes this as a civil war, so probably the 'resistance' are ordinary Afghanis, living amongst their communities. This makes air strikes and drone attacks completely unacceptable tactics in a 'war' that should not be happening anyway.

Thanks Clark!

Chris

england has always supported sunni extremist elements and terroris of all sorts-ecept when they attack their masters then tack of british media changes.
in 80s the british were doing antisoivet propaganda saying that soviets were encouraging woem to read and write which is agasint islam according to then then british mbastard corporation otehtrwise known as BBC.
Zbigniew Brzezinski revealed a hidden Fact that on July 3, 1979, unknown to the public and American Congress that President Jimmy Carter secretly authorized $500 million to create an international terrorist movement that would spread Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and "de-stabilize" the Soviet Union...
The CIA called this Operation Cyclone and in the following years poured $4 billion into setting up Islamic training schools in Pakistan (Taliban means "student").

These people were sent to the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where future members of al-Qaeda were taught "sabotage skills" - terrorism.
Others were recruited at an Islamic school in Brooklyn, New York, In Pakistan; they were directed by British MI6 officers and trained by the SAS.

For years, Hizb-i-Islami fighters have had a reputation for being more educated and worldly than their Taliban counterparts, who are often illiterate farmers. Their leader, Hekmatyar, studied engineering at Kabul University in the 1970s, where he made a name of a sort for himself by hurling acid in the faces of unveiled women.

He established Hizb-i-Islami to counter growing Soviet influence in the country and, in the 1980s, his organization became one of the most extreme fundamentalist parties as well as the leading group fighting the Soviet occupation. Ruthless, powerful, and anti-communist, Hekmatyar proved a capable ally for Washington, which funneled millions of dollars and tons of weapons through the Pakistani ISI to his forces.
Blowback abounds in Afghanistan. Erstwhile US Central Intelligence Agency hand Jalaluddin Haqqani heads yet a third insurgent network, this one based in Afghanistan's eastern border regions. During the anti-Soviet war, the US gave Haqqani, now considered by many to be Washington's most redoubtable foe, millions of dollars, anti-aircraft missiles, and even tanks. Officials in Washington were so enamored with him that former congressman Charlie Wilson once called him "goodness personified".

Haqqani was an early advocate of the "Afghan Arabs", who, in the 1980s, flocked to Pakistan to join the jihad against the Soviet Union. He ran training camps for them and later developed close ties to al-Qaeda, which developed out of Afghan-Arab networks towards the end of the anti-Soviet war. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the US tried desperately to bring him over to its side. However, Haqqani claimed that he couldn't countenance a foreign presence on Afghan soil and once again took up arms, aided by his longtime benefactors in Pakistan's ISI. He is said to have introduced suicide bombing to Afghanistan, a tactic unheard of there before 2001. Western intelligence officials pin the blame for most of the spectacular attacks in recent memory - a massive car bomb that ripped apart the Indian embassy in July, for example - on the Haqqani network, not the Taliban.

The Haqqanis command the lion's share of foreign fighters operating in the country and tend to be even more extreme than their Taliban counterparts. Unlike most of the Taliban and Hizb-i-Islami, elements of the Haqqani network work closely with al-Qaeda. The network's leadership is most likely based in Waziristan, in the Pakistani tribal areas, where it enjoys ISI protection.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/asia/27afghan.html

KABUL, Afghanistan — American and NATO troops firing from passing convoys and military checkpoints have killed 30 Afghans and wounded 80 others since last summer, but in no instance did the victims prove to be a danger to troops, according to military officials in Kabul.

“We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat,” said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who became the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan last year. His comments came during a recent videoconference to answer questions from troops in the field about civilian casualties.

why Nato exists anyway?-just to prop up third rate power england and no body else.

During the eighteenth century, the British were making encroachments into the Arabian peninsula, but Mohammed Abdul Wahhab, the founder of the Wahhabi movement, instead declared "Jihad" against the entire Muslim world. Wahhabism is now financed by Saudi wealth delivered by Big Oil (Western Oligarchy).
The Muslim Brotherhood, which, though it poses as an orthodox Muslim organization, is secretly derived from Egyptian Freemasonry, has long been a tool of Western intelligence agencies. The Muslim Brotherhood received training and support from the Nazis prior to WW2, but after the war, control of the organization was passed to the Americans. However, instead of rounding up former Nazis, the American hired them.
In the 1980s, the CIA financed and armed the so called Muslim Terrorists Bin Laden and consorts, partly through ISI.

The divisions between warring religions is engineered and financed.

""
There was a point in Afghanistan's tortured history when the future looked bright, when a determined effort to lift the country and its people out of backward agrarian feudalism almost succeeded.

It began with the formation of the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) back in the sixties, which opposed the autocratic rule of King Zahir Shar. The growth in popularity of the PDPA eventually led to them taking control of the country in 1978, after a coup removed the former Kings' cousin, Mohammed Daud, from power.

The coup enjoyed popular support in the towns and cities, evidenced in reports carried in US newspapers. The Wall Street Journal, no friend of revolutionary movements, reported at the time that '150,000 persons marched to honour the new flagthe participants appeared genuinely enthusiastic.' The Washington Post reported that 'Afghan loyalty to the government can scarcely be questioned.

Upon taking power, the new government introduced a program of reforms designed to abolish feudal power in the countryside, guarantee freedom of religion, along with equal rights for women and ethnic minorities. Thousands of prisoners under the old regime were set free and police files burned in a gesture designed to emphasise an end to repression. In the poorest parts of Afghanistan, where life expectancy was 35 years, where infant mortality was one in three, free medical care was provided. In addition, a mass literacy campaign was undertaken, desperately needed in a society in which ninety percent of the population could neither read nor write.

The resulting rate of progress was staggering. By the late 1980s half of all university students in Afghanistan were women, and women made up 40 percent of the country's doctors, 70 percent of its teachers, and 30 percent of its civil servants. In John Pilger's 'New Rulers Of The World' (Verso, 2002), he relates the memory of the period through the eyes of an Afghan woman, Saira Noorani, a female surgeon who escaped the Taliban in 2001. She said: "Every girl could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked. We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian movies. It all started to go wrong when the mujaheddin started winning. They used to kill teachers and burn schools. It was sad to think that these were the people the West had supported."

Under the pretext that the Afghan government was a Soviet puppet, which was false, the then Carter Administration authorised the covert funding of opposition tribal groups, whose traditional feudal existence had come under attack with these reforms. An initial $500 million was allocated, money used to arm and train the rebels in the art in secret camps set up specifically for the task across the border in Pakistan. This opposition came to be known as the mujaheddin, and so began a campaign of murder and terror which, six months later, resulted in the Afghan government in Kabul requesting the help of the Soviet Union, resulting in an ill-fated military intervention which ended ten years later in an ignominious retreat of Soviet military forces and the descent of Afghanistan into the abyss of religious intolerance, abject poverty, warlordism and violence that has plagued the country ever since.

Brzezinski confirms: "Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention."

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, US oil companies have been vying with Russia, Iran and other energy interests for the massive, untapped oil and natural gas reserves in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. The building and protection of oil and gas pipelines in Afghanistan, to continue farther to Pakistan, India, and elsewhere, has been a key objective of US policy since before the 2001 American invasion and occupation of the country, although the subsequent turmoil there has presented serious obstacles to such plans. A planned Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline has strong support from Washington because, amongst other reasons, the US is eager to block a competing pipeline that would bring gas to Pakistan and India from Iran. But security for such projects remains daunting, and that's where the US and NATO forces come in to play.

In the late 1990s, the American oil company, Unocal, met with Taliban officials in Texas to discuss the pipelines.[6] Zalmay Khalilzad, later chosen to be the US ambassador to Afghanistan, worked for Unocal[7]; Hamid Karzai, later chosen by Washington to be the Afghan president, also reportedly worked for Unocal, although the company denies this. Unocal's talks with the Taliban, conducted with the full knowledge of the Clinton administration, and undeterred by the extreme repression of Taliban society, continued as late as 2000 or 2001.

As for NATO, it has no reason to be fighting in Afghanistan. Indeed, NATO has no legitimate reason for existence at all. Their biggest fear is that "failure" in Afghanistan would make this thought more present in the world's mind. If NATO hadn’t begun to intervene outside of Europe it would have highlighted its uselessness and lack of mission. “Out of area or out of business” it was said.

"the Afghan resistance is probably not structured like a western military, in separate barracks and 'compounds'. Craig describes this as a civil war, so probably the 'resistance' are ordinary Afghanis, living amongst their communities. This makes air strikes and drone attacks completely unacceptable tactics in a 'war' that should not be happening anyway."

That is right and in fact the afghan resistance is a lot smaller than the media portray. The difficulty in fighting them is that when they are driven out of an area they disappear out of sight and just pop up a few months late in the same place. It is impossible to beat them and most of the troop in Helmand think that.
Until there is a straight government in power the fighting will not stop. The taliban aren't the major problem, it's the poverty of the average afghan and government corruption that are the main concerns. Eliminate them and the taliban will diminish. There isn't many of them anyway.

NATO

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

OK, you can get a bit further away from the North Atlantic than Afghanistan without actually leaving the planet; same hemisphere.

Guardian headline - UK special envoy to Afghanistan who called for talks with Taliban quits.
Exclusive: Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles on 'extended leave' after rocky relationship with Nato and US over tactics in conflict

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/21/uk-special-envoy-afghanistan-quits

It would appear that we are about to enter arguably the saddest part of any of these modern “police actions”: where the “police” inevitably withdraw and the” victors” celebrate - over the bodies of the “collaborators”...

This giant mess seems almost unavoidable. Over the years preceding 9/11, the Soviets, various oil companies, the CIA and the Northern Alliance all found the Taliban to be... not exactly prone to negotiations. The recent eight years of conflict would have only served to eliminate any moderates (like Hamid Karzai) from the movement. Furthermore, whatever people may think of their culture, they are astute enough to know that with NATO’s military power rendered irrelevant and its members’ political will largely exhausted, time is very much on their side.

I shudder to think what future generations will think of this pitiful episode in human history – as they watch perfectly preserved, digital footage of civilians exploding in helicopter gunsight cameras and listen to the flight crew chuckle. Some might wonder why, if the goal of the war was truly to “eliminate 9/11 terrorist training arenas”, NATO didn’t simply bomb selected flats in Hamburg and Washington...

1) 300TH BRITISH SOLDIER KILLED IN AFGHANISTAN

Another tragic landmark has been passed with the 300th British soldier do be
killed in Afghanistan. They are now dying at a rate of one every two days in a war which is clearly aimless and unwinnable.

The average age of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan is 22. Two hundred
soldiers have been killed in their twenties and 31 teenagers are among the
death toll.

David Cameron says he wants the troops to return home from Afghanistan "with
heads held high". His present war policies means an increasing number will only return in a coffin or with missing limbs.

********************************
2) BUDGET DAY STOP THE WAR/CND PROTEST AT PARLIAMENT

Chancellor George Osborne has forewarned of a slash and burn attack on all public services in his budget, with the exception of defence expenditure, which will be "protected".

The Afghan War has cost £11 billion so far, and this year will waste another
£4 billion. Trident renewal will cost an
astronomical £70 billion, more than the total amount the government wants to
cut from its budget deficit in the next five years.

It is the war budget that should be slashed, rather than public services. And all the troops should be brought home to help end the spiral of violence in Afghanistan. The United Nations reported recently that the presence of the British army has only worsened security in the country.

Join the budget day protest at Parliament, called by Stop the War and CND:

CUT THE WAR, SCRAP TRIDENT, BRING THE TROOPS HOME
TUESDAY 22 JUNE 4.30PM - 6.30PM
PARLIAMENT SQUARE, LONDON

`Call me a cynic, but as soon as I hear of the latest "rogue state", declared by the US and endorsed, invariably, by UK and Israel - a "rogue", always far away, invariably either poverty stricken, or embargoed - I reach for a 1993 "Encyclopaedia of Word Geography", turn to the page on the latest declared "enemy", and look at the box which lists: "Major resources."`

`Further: " (... added) to this the US proposed gas pipeline – Turkmenistan – Afghanistan – Pakistan – India (TAPI) which is worth (inestimable) dollars to the US economy" the central aim of US, UK and NATO forces seems obvious. "I would again ask: why are all the coalition forces directing their fighting in the provinces of Herat, Helmand and Kandahar? (It is) the expected transit route for the TAPI pipeline ..", comments Eyre.`

`Coincidentally it is also the centre of the Opium trade.`

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19828

Nonsense, nonsense, Afghanistan has nothing that we want, we're doing it for their women and their gays and those Buddhist statues, and anyway, we'd just trade with them, like we always do. Nuke'em, nuke'em! Terrorists!

Yes! This thread had links to davidicke.com and globalresearch.ca!

Anyone want to link to infowars.com? A Russia Today video?

Larry, I linked to the NY Times. You've got a problem with that?

Who would you link to Larry, if you knew how?

Craig

This is a remarkable claim:

'It was promonted in Brown's No 10 as a cynical propaganda line following focus group testing of what argument would best "sell" the war.'

Do you have a source for this?

"Who would you link to Larry, if you knew how?"

If I knew how? Certainly not to davidicke.com!

Lizard people!

I don't believe Cameron buys the nonsensical rationale either, he's just paying lip service to it because he doesn't have any choice. The question is, what does he think it's really about? What do they tell him when he asks? Do they say, 'Oh it's about the pipeline but we can't say that.'? I'd love to know.

Larry Chomstein from California.

Malcolm Pryce,

at a guess, I'd say the official doctrine is to maintain a power base near (1) Pakistan's nuclear weapons and (2) Iran. It may also be about putting forces between these two.

Avatar Singh, those were great posts - thanks again for providing the long view; this is crucial in such discussions. Of course they were a creation of the US/UK. There are now so many double-games going on, it's dizzying.

There's absolutely no evidence that the CIA funded bin Laden. Likewise, there's no evidence for pretty much everything else that Avatar Singh claims.

"There's absolutely no evidence that the CIA funded bin Laden".

Only if you're not interested in evidence. Who do you think led the CIA-funded Mujahadeen against the Soviets in the 1980s?

I recently came across a good quote from Eleanor Roosevelt that reminded me of you Larry:

"Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people".

Straight question for Craig -

"This is quite simply a ludicrous proposition, and one to which the security, military and diplomatic establishments do not subscribe."

So who is keeping this war going? Or were you referring only to UK security, military, diplomats, etc, and Britain will stay for so long as the US sees fit?

Just seen an extended interview on Channel 4 with the widow and daughter of Captain Mark Hale, the 300th soldier to die. Very moving. What an outrage that these families are being devastated on the back of such a bogus rationale. And that goes for all the dead in Afghanistan too. Why do we allow them to get away with it?

On the button, Craig. I anticipated the old grim milestone headlines which we are all reading today on my own blog yesterday. There will be another one along before long. There is not even a pretence of a strategy in Afghanistan now.

Craig,

What is happening with Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles and his extended "leave" and Karen Pierce? Coincidentally the Gulf is full of American, Israeli warships and nuclear submarines.

Has our Coalition agreed to war with Iran on 23rd? or is this an idle blog-rumour?

This is itchy trigger-finger-syndrome. The US fancies a new war, Israel is always up for a war. Hague and Fox will be frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a war. Not so sure about the LibDems.

Tony,

23rd. Day after tomorrow?

`Death rate of UK soldiers in Afghanistan four time higher than US`

`The average age of British soldiers dying in the pointless and unwinnable Afghanistan war is 22. Two hundred soldiers have been killed in their twenties and 31 teenagers are among the death toll.`
http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1949/1/

"Who do you think led the CIA-funded Mujahadeen against the Soviets in the 1980s?"

Yes, the CIA supported certain factions of the muj. But not bin Laden.

Apparently the world is far more complicated than your simplistic little mind can handle.

Avatar Singh, I repeat, those were great posts. MJ, absolutely.

Tony, that's terrifying. I hope it's a blog-rumour. With so many predictions of an attack on Iran having been and passed over the last few years, I sometimes think that some of these rumours are spread by the military-political machine itself to keep up the psychological pressure on Iran. However, I think that war is what they seem to want, above all else. It is their raison d'etre, after all, those who rule us, the US corporate entities and those in the USA who make a speciality of funding all sides in all wars.

Well, check it our for yourselves. Even the BBC have made this claim about the USA and Bin Laden. Of course the CIA and associated 'quiet Americans' were his pals, they were all over that region during the late 1970s and 1980s. They did everything they wanted, directly, covertly and via proxies.

The question is, whom do you believe? Those professional systemic liars, torturers and murderers at Langley and in the Pakistani ISI? Or just about everyone else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden

For the latest on prospects for WW3 on the back of the recent Bilderberger check out two episodes 131 and 133 available as podcasts at the Corbett Report.

If you're not getting your news from sources like this you're probably not making the most of the internet.

Pity they'll be shutting it down soon!

DINGBATS!

As an index of the extent of Zio-infiltration and subversion in any given country the list of states most heavily committed to the war in Afghanistan is the perfect barometer.

Those dying in Afghanistan come from the US, Britain, Germany, and Canada to name but a few of those where Zionist domination is thoroughly entrenched.

Zionist control of the media via corporate ownership and strategic placement of disinformationists and gate-keepers here in UK means you will probably not be allowed to read this........

The truth is the only thing that will set people free and heal the appalling wounds inflicted on all sides by the Afghan War.

9/11 WAS an 'inside job'. Quite provably.

Failure to seriously investigate this open-and-shut case by avoiding the issue, while strongly pushing any other line means one has swallowed the camel.

This amounts to gatekeeping, deception of genuine truthseekers, support for the big lie.

Betrayal of truth.

To be fair to the government, William Hague produced a somewhat more sophisticated argument for the continued occupation:

"I am strongly supportive of our involvement in Afghanistan. Containment is vital in order to stop the possibility of the Taliban creating a situation whereby a truly extremist Government could take over and therefore have access to nuclear weapons. The former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and others have said in the past that this containment was essential in order to stop further problems within our own communities at home. There is a bigger picture. Being somewhat familiar with the region, I believe that the key reason for our involvement is that spelt out by Henry Kissinger a couple of months ago before the surge. There is great tension on the India/Pakistan border, with hundreds of thousands of troops already deployed. India will not tolerate such a dangerous development in Pakistan, as well as being conscious of the effect that it could have on its own Muslim population and its increasing Maoist problems in the north-east and the other central Asian Muslim states in that geographical area. The possibility of a much greater conflagration in that area could suck in other major countries on their borders, with all that that would mean to world peace. For me, that clearly spells out the case for containment, and nobody could possibly say that that scenario is not of vital interest to this country."

It completely passed me by that Rory Stewart, the mystery man of the Arabian deserts and the Turquoise Mountain or whatever his Kabul enterprise is called, became a Con MP for Penrith. He has been on Newsnight saying that patience and time should be given to the question of the war in Afghanistan and whether and/or when troops should be withdrawn!!

http://www.conservatives.com/People/Members_of_Parliament/Stewart_Rory.aspx

PS Was it not decided here that he is some sort of MI6 operative?

William Hague says meh. Remember Chomsky's dictum - pay attention to what they do before you pay attention to what they say.

I'll have another go at posting this, hopefully it won't be deleted this time.

Having heard official announcements today, very much regretting the 300th death of course, but also saying how necessary it all is, I'm pushed to see what crucial corner is about to be turned in this conflict. It's also amazing that the term "keep us safe" was bandied around unchallenged. I've yet to hear anyone go near a sensible reason for _why_ our presence in Afghanistan supposedly keeps us safe, the closest was that we're preventing "training camps" being set up.

The "training camps" we've all seen on video look more like an adventure playground, and I've yet to hear of an incident with jihadist ninjas leaping around, crawling through tunnels and tackling obstacle courses (AK47's to hand), in any engagement with westerners in the UK/US etc. . Yet preventing these "training camps" is now apparently what it's all about. Any training which apparently led to previous terrorist atrocities did not take place in Afghanistan.

Media complicity in parroting this nonsense as conventional wisdom makes _all_ reporting from the BBC and MSM suspect.

Anonymous: "9/11 WAS an 'inside job'. Quite provably."

Do you realize that you just offended millions of Muslims, who are quite proud of taking down the Towers?

Still no real evidence that connects bin Laden to the CIA. Just innuendo.

I respect Craig's proviso that his argument is not about Bin Laden. Myself, of course I argue that Osama is dead and I stick by that; I cannot however provide proof other than perhaps the words of Bhutto and David Cook(PBUH). I just believe them. I am however proud that Craig argues we are not fighting in Afghanistan to protect Britain from a terrorist attack, but why are we there sacrificing our young soldiers?

You could name a dozen reasons, is it simply to maintain the war machine, exploit minerals, attack Iran or build massive bases as in Iraq? Perhaps to skew China's influence in the region or maybe an excuse to maintain NATO? Whatever reason(s) we opt for, the official reason I believe is a lie.

And to maintain the lie we rely on support and assistance from Pakistan's ISI and that is backed at the highest levels of Pakistan’s civilian administration. Pakistan appears to be playing a double game of astonishing magnitude. There is thus a strong case that the ISI orchestrates, sustains and shapes the overall insurgent campaign in Afghanistan.

The Pakistani ISI orchestrates, sustains and strongly influences the Taliban insurgency movement. According to Taliban interviews with Matt Waldman, the Afghan Taliban commanders say that the ISI gives sanctuary to both Taliban and Haqqani groups, and provides huge support in terms of training, funding, munitions, and supplies. In the words of these Afghan Taliban commanders, this is ‘as clear as the sun in the sky’.

The ISI is said to compensate families of suicide bombers to the tune of 200,000 Pakistani rupees, claims the Waldman report. Thus US aid to bankrupt Pakistan goes directly to finance the death of UK/US/NATO soldiers in Afghanistan.

Obvious to many, the British and Pakistani governments deny this assistance just as they deny the existence of Mullah Mohammed Omar’s ‘Quetta Shura Taliban (QST)’ in the provincial capital Quetta of Baluchistan.

British commanders will confirm the existence of QST as the main threat to NATO missions in Afghanistan, but of course they are playing the game of 'cognitive dissonance' in a crucial power game of maintaining our way of life.

The rules however have been broken, honour lost and the deception exposed; the ghosts of dead serviceman are now playing into the hearts and minds of an objective and wise'd up British public.

Oh Larry, really, your pathetic attempts to raise 9/11 repeatedly are just embarassing. Now stop being silly.

Craig

I really would like to know if you have a source for your claim that the Brown government focus-group tested the rationale for the war in Afghanistan.

The Final Desperate Act of a Failed Deception - Changing the Political Landscape

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a law that bars Americans from providing support to foreign terrorist groups, rejecting arguments that it violated constitutional rights of free speech and association.

U.S. | POLITICS

The decision came in the first test to reach the Supreme Court after the September 11, 2001, attacks of a case pitting the right of U.S. citizens to speak and associate freely against the government's efforts to fight terrorism.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65K4B420100621

"Do you realize that you just offended millions of Muslims, who are quite proud of taking down the Towers?"

So many Muslims believe 9/11 was an inside job because they cannot fathom a True Muslim doing anything so heinous.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1921758,00.html

This brings back to mind when the US urge the Kurds to revolt against Saddam, but let Saddam use air power against them to gun them down.

I suspect the Pashtuns are an independent minded lot, and able fighters. If the Yanks can't easily bribe or break them, then they gravitate to the tribes that are more pliable. The US/NATO is running an oil pipeline - shedding blood for oil.

Waiting to see one of Obama's or Cameron's children on the front line soon in Afghanistan.

What a fucked up world we live in.

@Avatar,
“Under the pretext that the Afghan government was a Soviet puppet, which was false, the then Carter Administration authorised the covert funding of opposition tribal groups, whose traditional feudal existence had come under attack with these reforms. An initial $500 million was allocated, money used to arm and train the rebels in the art in secret camps set up specifically for the task across the border in Pakistan. This opposition came to be known as the mujaheddin, and so began a campaign of murder and terror which, six months later, resulted in the Afghan government in Kabul requesting the help of the Soviet Union, resulting in an ill-fated military intervention which ended ten years later in an ignominious retreat of Soviet military forces and the descent of Afghanistan into the abyss of religious intolerance, abject poverty, warlordism and violence that has plagued the country ever since.”

Obama would now have the world believe that the US is not projecting power for its own sake. I actually agree – its for oil’s sake.

Arms sales and the existence of a consistently funded military budgets will have to have justification, and a part of such justification is “black ops”, be it 9/11 ( cf. Bay of Tong Kin incident) or the demonisation of a faction that appeals to Western public opinion ( read – “Muslims”) as “the enemy”. So let’s now fight, come on Afghanistan, come on Iraq – and – God willing – come on Iran.

Understand - we cannot tolerate atrocities, so we must inflict atrocities on the enemies, wherever we invade their countries, before they come over here and inflict atrocities on us.

Remember – we are doing all this for humanitarian reasons – bombing the villagers to defend freedom, peace and democracy.

@ All,

Hague states:-

"There is great tension on the India/Pakistan border, with hundreds of thousands of troops already deployed. India will not tolerate such a dangerous development in Pakistan, as well as being conscious of the effect that it could have on its own Muslim population and its increasing Maoist problems in the north-east and the other central Asian Muslim states in that geographical area. The possibility of a much greater conflagration in that area could suck in other major countries on their borders, with all that that would mean to world peace."

So - can we safely assume that since there is not a standing army being fought, but drones and other collective forms of bombardment are being deployed against the unseen "enemy" - that the conseqential killing of civilians and villagers has not already served well to radicalise the majority of the Afghan population against the invading forces?

Probably not?

Just another humanitarian Western "peace keeping" mission, or as Hague says "...with all that could mean to world peace." Thus, the imposition of Western power is the great peace card being played and justified in this already lost war...hmmmm.

PS. Like the General in Vietnam said - we bombed the village to save the people. Perfect military logic~!

More accurately stated, it was a Major who stated, "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it"

He wa speaking about routing Viet Cong, regardless of the civilian consequeces of such action.

Gee - great way to win hearts and minds and win the war!

The simplest (and therefore most likely) explanation for continued US and NATO involvement in Afghanistan is that:

1. A US leader who admits a military defeat is finished in politics. Military "credibility" is an obsession in the media and political circles.

2. Other NATO allies wish to keep the US sweet.

Why the idiot Bush went into Afghanistan is a different question. Going after Bin Laden suffices as an explanation.

"Who do you think led the CIA-funded Mujahadeen against the Soviets in the 1980s?"

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Ahmed Shah Massoud, Adbur Rasal Sayaf (a very inspirational guy) Burhanuddin Rabbani, Abdul Haq, etc... and later on Ismail Khan, Dostum (when they defected).

Also Abdullah Azzam was one of the main Arab leaders while Osama bin Laden was just some bit-part player who may have fought in one battle but spent the rest of the war handing out pistachios and chocolates to jihadis in the hospitals of Peshawar.

And it was CIA and Saudi GID-funded, as well as ISI-directed.

Absolutely, angrysoba. It was indeed.

Mark Golding, thanks for that explanation. Remember that I've been posing the question on this blog for a while now: "Who funds and supplies the Taliban?"

It seems, from your response, that perhaps the ISI again are supplying the Taliban. Perhaps they have never stopped. Is my supposition correct?

So, while the regular Pakistani army fights the Taliban in Pakistan, the Pakistani secret state is supplying the Taliban in Afghanistan. This is the double game to which you were alluding.

Since the Obama Admin. canme to power, the USA has engaged in a massive overt infiltration of 'civil society' in Pakistan - the common perception and phraseology there right now is, "The British are out; the Americans are back in force; it's just like the 1980s!".

So, are the Americans complicit in this double-game? Are they also playing a double-game? Are they complicit in relation to the supplying of their ostensible 'enemy', the Taliban, with weaponry, etc. to fight the own regular army and those of NATO. Or are the Americans being duped by their puppets? What's your view? Thanks again.

Put simply, the major western powers have invaded Asia, with Afghanistan functioning as a major, strategic, bridgehead, allowing for potential, future access to the continents untapped energy and mineral resources.

Obviously such a brazen imperialist land/resource grab needs a plausible, diversionary, cover-story, and the fight against terrorism provides such a pretext, until the war itself becomes so much a part of our culture and way of life, that it becomes self-justifying.

"and the fight against terrorism provides such a pretext,"

What was the U.S. supposed to do after Sept. 11? Send the Taliban and al-Qaeda a nasty letter?

"Absolutely, angrysoba. It was indeed."

That is to say that the warlords I mentioned before were those that were CIA-backed.

Osama bin Laden, however, was not.

"It seems, from your response, that perhaps the ISI again are supplying the Taliban. Perhaps they have never stopped. Is my supposition correct?"

This has surely been well-known for some time. And former members such as Hamid Gul appears to have retained lots of contacts.

I remember that it was alleged that a retired high-ranking member of the ISI was tipping off the Taliban a number of times and Hamid Gul was the prime suspect. He denied it by saying, "It can't have been me. I retired a few years ago."

"So, are the Americans complicit in this double-game? Are they also playing a double-game? Are they complicit in relation to the supplying of their ostensible 'enemy', the Taliban, with weaponry, etc. to fight the own regular army and those of NATO."

Didn't they invade so that they could stabilize the country, build pipelines to take all the oil[sic] before the far more honourable Chinese did and rob the country of minerals?

If so, what can be the purpose of funding the Taliban to keep the country in a war-ravaged state? Just for the pure evilness of it all?

Mark Golding: "Myself, of course I argue that Osama is dead and I stick by that; I cannot however provide proof other than perhaps the words of Bhutto and David Cook(PBUH)."

David Cook? Don't you mean Peter Cook?

Larry from St Louis: "What was the U.S. supposed to do after Sept. 11?"

In my view, after 9/11 America should have
(a) destroyed Bin Laden's camps with tomahawk missiles *before* evacuating the US embassy in Pakistan. The latter gave UBL the clue to clear off.
(b) *not* muscled in on British Special Forces when they actually found Bin Laden, out of an eagerness to take the prize - and UBL escaped while US generals dithered what to do next.
(c) *not* abandoned Afghanistan to its fate, once the Taleban appeared to have been driven out
(d) *not* invaded Iraq on the basis of myths and appallingly bad planning
(e) *not*, after Iraq was conquered, banned all Baath party members from government jobs (never mind that refusing to join the Baath under Saddam was not a good idea) so that, unable to provide for themselves, they joined the insurgency.
You're now headed for another Viet Nam, unless you manage to win over the population and create a more just society in Afghanistan than the Taleban did, and that could take a small miracle. Otherwise, as Craig indicates, doing a deal with the Taleban that may lead to a somewhat more moderate regime than in the late 1990s may be the most than you can hope for.

correction: last sentence should end 'that you can hope for'.

Make that 'doing a deal with the Pashtun (which includes a proportion of Taleban)', if dealing with UBL's protectors is too much to stomach.

"What was the U.S. supposed to do after Sept. 11?"

Hold a proper investigation to determine who was responsible.

"what can be the purpose of funding the Taliban to keep the country in a war-ravaged state?"

To provide the pretext for maintaining a permanent miliary presence.

"Investigators probing US money flow to insurgents"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100621/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_afghanistan_trucking_probe

@Larry from St. Louis

withdrawing support and weapons supply from the Israelis would have been a good start. 9/11 was a reaction as was 7/7, Milan etc. These guys aren't bombing us just for fun, as the saying goes 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.

"To provide the pretext for maintaining a permanent miliary presence."

Well, it is quite obviously a far bigger pretext for having troops brought home.

"Investigators probing US money flow to insurgents"

Well, the fact there is massive corruption and lots of side swapping isn't surprising. Remember that during the Russian war whole divisions would suddenly turn and fight the government troops (Ismail Khan and Dostum, for example). Somehow I doubt the Russians were funding the "insurgents" to prolong a war to justify their military presence there.

But are you implying that the extortion rackets on the roads are ways for the US government to launder its funding of the Taliban?

Larry

'What was the U.S. supposed to do after Sept. 11? Send the Taliban and al-Qaeda a nasty letter?'

No, you could have accepted their offer to extradite bin Laden.

"Well, it is quite obviously a far bigger pretext for having troops brought home".

I hadn't noticed. My understanding was that troop numbers were increasing.

"But are you implying that the extortion rackets on the roads are ways for the US government to launder its funding of the Taliban?"

Now there's a thought.

Malcolm - If bin Laden was behind 911 what motive could the US have for not accepting the offer of his extradition?

As I make the 100th comment here, the total of UK military killed in Afghanistan rises from 300 to 301. That happened quickly.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10374260.stm

"I hadn't noticed. My understanding was that troop numbers were increasing."

It's also been a cynical eyes-on-the-polls compromise increase. The promise was that they would leave not long after. Now Craig Murray has made the prediction that "we'll" be gone and he clearly includes the Yanks here as he adds Karzai will be gone too and I am guessing that what he means by this is the US is propping him up. So, if you are correct, the US will renege on its promise and they will not draw down. They will stay there and Craig Murray will be wrong.

Well, at least it is possible to verify this.

"Now there's a thought."

So, the US government are paying their Afghan go-betweens who run protection rackets along highways to give the cash to the Taliban so that they can blow things up including US and other NATO or ISAF servicemen and women so that the US has an excuse to stay in Afghanistan and get attacked and fatten its military-industrial complex budget.

Is that a fair assessment of your theory?

That 'bit part player' Bin Laden, angry, was the bag man for the CIA, he was not only overseeing the Tora Bora caves being fortified into ammunition dumps.

Whatever the past facts, the future will either belong to eclectic selfcentred fools, hell bent on making money, ueber alles, regardless of relations in the world, unless we find a sufficient spanner to throw into their works.

Craid, would it be awefully impractical to exchange/add the casualty figures in Afghanistan next to the one's from Iraq,
preferably under a provocative heading like, 'those who will not come home', or 'wasted young lives'. Imho this would give more attention to this war. best keep an Irna slot ready as well.

US forces are worried that the Afghans use of old Lee Enfield rifles will ruin their arms trade... Well, the Taliban is using these heavy old weapons to their advantage on thick skulls. US forces are running around in helmets made from paper mache and their casualties show this, its useless, still it must be a vogue colour, otherwise they would have complained more loudly long ago.

Today I woke up to the report of the 301st. soldier dead, this after reading yesterdays '300 and counting news'carried by all the papers, so psychologically encouraging to us all.

Mr. Cameron should not expect that the general public still believes in his patronising propaganda.
Johnny public full well knows that our effort in Afghanistan is creating hatred, future bad relations, as well as more hardship for us all.

Anybody knows how many MP's spouses are serving in Afghanistan's front line?

And it turns out we are paying millions of dollars a week to warlords no to attack our vehicle convoys.

It's reminiscent of Milo Mindbender in Catch 22. It would be funny, if it were not so tragic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10372309.stm

"That 'bit part player' Bin Laden, angry, was the bag man for the CIA,"

Evidence?

"US forces are worried that the Afghans use of old Lee Enfield rifles will ruin their arms trade..."

Evidence? Although, I think Taiwan should be given the heads up just in case they fancy using them to take on China.

Malcolm,

Yes I do have a source, but not one I am free to reveal. I have a great many sources within government foreign affairs circles, having worked there for two decades.

"And it turns out we are paying millions of dollars a week to warlords no to attack our vehicle convoys."

Now, I did read about a story in which French soldiers had been killed because the Italians who had been there before had been paying for a protection racket and forgot to tell the newcomers.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jyiGD_AO14vttJiCFDzGx3aWATXA

And similar claims were made about the Canadians:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/711217--canada-denies-paying-off-the-taliban

Craig, on the off chance that someone on here gets to ask a question on Any Questions or similar, do you know who in Labour organised the focus groups on the best way to sell the war? Somewhere there must be a dozen or two members of the public who can describe this despicable process. If nothing else it might help to keep David Milliband as far as possible from the levers of power. Are the tories using similar methods? If any Lib Dem gets involved in this practice they are finished in the party.

January 29, 2002

`What Will Be the Next Target of the Oil Coup?`

`Based on the analysis presented above, we believe that the most likely targets in the "War on Terrorism" will be Iraq, Iran, Colombia, Venezuela, and possibly (though hopefully not) Russia. That there will be actions in other theatres is certain.`
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/01_29_02_what_next.html

`U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion`

April 30, 2001
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

I was just reading yesterday's defence debate. I can't get all the new lot's names.

One caught my eye - Sheryl Murray Con Camborne who spoke of her daughter in the RN who are so excellent at protecting British citizens in international waters in the Mediterranean when their ships are being attacked by the Israelis.

I saw the extract on last night's review and when she said this* about her daughter, they all harrumphed and said 'hear hear' like a herd of animals.

'I have a specific interest in the Navy because *my daughter is a serving Royal Navy officer*. I have gained first-hand knowledge of the various ways in which our senior service operates in many roles around the globe. The Royal Navy is flexible, resilient and capable, providing Government with a range of options to deal with threats and challenges facing the UK and her allies. The varied tasks undertaken include: providing support for the Department for International Development; supporting the Home Office in protecting the territorial integrity of our home waters; providing fishery protection in English, Welsh and Northern Irish waters; and supporting the Cabinet Office in co-ordinating UK maritime surveillance information.'

and another who is a TA reservist
Jack Lopresti Con Filton and Bradley Stoke

'I believe that the one thing that will distinguish this Parliament from many of its recent predecessors is the number of us sitting here today who have served. That includes new hon. Friends from as far afield as South Dorset and Penrith and the Border, as well as many in between. My own military experience is as a serving Territorial Army soldier. I am a Gunner with 266 Commando Battery of the Royal Artillery. As a mobilised reservist,
I had the huge honour and privilege to spend a year serving with the mighty men of 29 Commando Regiment, five months of it in Afghanistan on Operation Herrick 9.
As a private soldier, Gunner Lopresti, I spent my tour in Helmand, where I saw at first hand what decisions made in the House of Commons can mean for the men and women on the ground. I worked with the Rifles for a bit of my tour of duty as a member of infantry force protection on the Medical Emergency Response Team, who work in the back of a Chinook helicopter. I watched some awe-inspiring young people fly in and out of danger to pick up and treat casualties, sometimes in the very worst of circumstances and sometimes successfully, sometimes not. I learnt exactly what our future decisions could mean. I also worked alongside a remarkably brave and inspirational soldier, a Lance Bombardier from 29 Commando, whose foot and lower leg were blown off by an improvised explosive device while he was driving a Land Rover with no mine protection in 2006 and who, less than two years later, was back doing a second tour of duty with his regiment as part of 3 Commando Brigade. That was just amazing.

My experience is what will inform my thinking when the debate on the shape of our military future takes place. Our new Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will certainly have the support of this new Member of Parliament if our Government honour their commitment to renew and strengthen the military covenant, but I will also reserve the right to be a critical friend, not only mindful of Britain's place in the world and our international duties and obligations, but conscious above all of our duty properly to equip and care for those who put their lives on the line for our country. This country needs many culture changes; let us ensure that the ongoing welfare of our servicemen is among them.

Making my maiden speech in this place is a truly humbling experience which I assure the House I will never forget, but nor, as we review our defence priorities, will I ever let this place forget the debt that we owe to our service personnel. As the great General George Patton once said, wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men.'

What a creep and dangerous with it too.

"Is that a fair assessment of your theory?"

I don't have a theory. Only a couple of observations.

"`Based on the analysis presented above, we believe that the most likely targets in the "War on Terrorism" will be Iraq, Iran, Colombia, Venezuela, and possibly (though hopefully not) Russia. That there will be actions in other theatres is certain.`"

So, Michael Ruppert's website is now predicting that at some time in the future in some volatile region there will be a terrorist attack.

Well, he is a genius, remember that not long ago he correctly predicted there would be an economic crisis.

Let me also make a prophetic statement and say that at some point in the future a politician preaching family values and wholesomeness will be found to be a big fat lying hypocrite.

MJ, "I don't have a theory. Only a couple of observations."

Do you think the US is funding insurgents to fight against their own forces to justify their continued military presence in the region?

I did it. I organised the focus groups. Yes, it was all my own fiendish work. I love dirty dealing. Catch me if you can. Because we won. Nyah hah hah hah hah! What's that? Muttley, you idiot, I wasn't talking about the last race. Curses!

"Do you think the US is funding insurgents to fight against their own forces to justify their continued military presence in the region?"

I don't know but it's certainly a possibility on the basis of the available evidence.

avatar singh, great posts.

Re Western funding of Afghan training Camps, see this link for more background info: http://preview.tinyurl.com/dn3xtq

Angry, please do read the 'war on Freedom' by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Institue for policy research& development, pg.177, quoting Rashid Ahmed's work' How a holy war against the Soveits turned on the US'.

I quote 'under contract with the CIA, he (O/Usama)and the family comapny built the multi billion dollar caves in whoich he's been apparently hiding:
" He brought in enginneers from his fathers company and heavy construction equipment to build roads and warehouses for the Mujaheddin. In 1986 he helped build a CIA financed tunnel complex to serve as major arms storage depot, training facillity and medical centre for Mujaheddin, deep under the mountains close to the Pakistan border.

For the Lee Enfield story, please read yesterdays Independent by Terri Judd @ Sharp rise in Army death from small arms fire prompts inquiry into Taliban snipers.'

In this article Prof. Bellamy noted that the Russians had a problem with acurate Lee Enfield rifles and sniping.
US Marines in Marjah's operation Moshtarak found a dead insurgent with an ancient, but powerfull, Lee Enfield rifle. US forces had casualties from these snipers, at distances of 500-700 yards.
The vast majority of oposing forces do use the AK47.
I hope this sufices.

Craig
'Yes I do have a source, but not one I am free to reveal'

Fair enough, mate, I understand. It's a shame though. Using focus groups to find the best way of selling a war is a masterpiece of barrel-scraping cynicism.

"Angry, please do read the 'war on Freedom' by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Institue for policy research& development, pg.177, quoting Rashid Ahmed's work' How a holy war against the Soveits turned on the US'."

I know enough about Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed to know that I'd want to see the orginal source for his claim. The writer he seems to be quoting is Ahmed Rashid (not "Rashid Ahmed").

Could you tell me the name of the article and/or book and page number for this?

US turn down Taliban offer of extradition:

‘The deal was that he [Osama bin Laden] would be held under house arrest in Peshawar….Later, a US official said that ‘casting our objectives too narrowly’ risked a ‘premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr bin Laden was captured.’’

Daily Mirror, 16 November 2001; quoted in Nafeez Ahmed’s The War on Truth

Malcolm Pryce - Yes, I remember it being reported on radio4, too, briefly. But at that point, I think it would have taken a much, much better leader than Bush to make it happen.

Osama bin Laden is dead, Benazir Bhutto said he was dead, you take that as the truth.

`AHMED RASHID`
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO311A.html

Redders asked:

"So Osama Bin Laden wasn't behind 911 then?"

Well, not according to the FBI he wasn't.

When they were asked in 2006 why OBL wasn't on the FBI's Most Wanted list in connection with 9/11, Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI replied:

"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"

So, Redders, do you know something that the US Government doesn't ?

Feel free to share it with us won't you.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2623

'somebody', I have never served in the Armed Forces, but I take exception to your calling someone who has actually put his life at risk for his country (Jack Lopresti) a creep, even if I disagree with the decisions of politicians, and even if I am not a Tory supporter myself.

`Tony Blair’s Weak Document`

`The task of providing such proof was taken up by Bush’s chief ally in the "war on terror," British Prime Minister Tony Blair. On October 4, 2001, Blair made public a document entitled: "Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States."`
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2009/10/30/bin-laden-and-9-11-the-evidence/

Tony Blair's Weak Document

The task of providing such proof was taken up by Bush's chief ally in the "war on terror," British Prime Minister Tony Blair. On October 4, 2001, Blair made public a document entitled: "Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States." Listing "clear conclusions reached by the government," it stated: "Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001." Blair's report, however, began by saying:

"This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law."

Although the case was not good enough to go to court, Blair seemed to be saying, it was good enough to go to war.

The weakness in Blair's report, in any event, was noted the next day by the BBC, which said: "There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks. At best the evidence is circumstantial."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15892

"Well, not according to the FBI he wasn't.

When they were asked in 2006 why OBL wasn't on the FBI's Most Wanted list in connection with 9/11, Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI replied...blah blah blah...

"So, Redders, do you know something that the US Government doesn't ?"

Not a-fucking-gain!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html

@Abu Rene

He is a creep. He has wrapped himself in the Union flag (which he has used to good effect in his successful electioneering) but he is NOT defending this country. We are NOT under attack. He and the rest of them are engaged in an illegal war that kills civilians including children and sends bombs down by remote control from pilotless drones.

I am sick of the pro patria mori mantra.

This CO said yesterday of a dead soldier - Spokesman for Task Force Helmand, Lt Col James Carr-Smith, said: "He had been improving the lives of local Afghans and helping to protect them from the insurgency. He died a marine." What nonsense and to think people are still falling for it.

Angrysoba

The Washington Post article you link to is hardly a stinging refutation of the point being made is it? Rex Tomb doesn't deny that he said the FBI had no hard evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11, he just says they could put him down as a suspect if they wanted to.

As for the Washington Post's claim that

'exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise' [that OBL was responsible]

All I can say is, er, no they haven't. If they have, where are they?

And as for

'bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings'

Er, no, OBL denied it.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

I've just checked the FBI page. Still no mention of 9/11 on OBL's personal most wanted page. After nine years and two wars.

You don't have to be a dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist to think something is not right there.

So, angrysoba, if what Mark Golding alleges is true, why are the Americans allowing it to happen? Are they so weak, they cannot even control their puppet, Pakistan? I am aware that the ISI is a tentacled organisation. But I mean, as I've written before, to supply an army to fight a guerilla war against superpower, you need serious amounts of ordnance. We're talking truckloads-upon-truckloads, trundling along roads, or planeloads. Easily bombable/ shootable-downable no? What really is going on in this quagmire - the quagmire some of us predicted it would be, way back in 2001. Do you know, or even have a theory? I mean, it would be like the South Vietnam regime supplying the Viet Cong with weapons for nine years to fight the Americans. So, can you - or indeed Mark, or indeed anyone - share your views on the matter with us, please? Thanks.

`or indeed anyone - share your views on the matter with us, please? Thanks`

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19837

Conspiracy theorist?

And what's worse we're talking dyed-in- the-wool conspiracist?

God forbid!

I mean what could possibly be worse?

You're not seriously suggesting we start to question official versions about what has happened in the world since the French Revolution are you?

I mean start doing our own research?

You'll be questioning the "Holocaust", 911, 7/7 and talking about Zionist bankers next!

And if you do any of those things you'll be DELETED.

They're all VERBOTEN!

This is the only truth you need to know:

(1) 6m Jews died in the "Holocaust" (that was invented in the 1960s).

(2) Woodrow Wilson and FDR were saintly men who saved the world during two World Wars from Germany and all the other nasty countries in the world like Japan.

(3)The Arabs carried out 911 because..well they're like that aren't they? And...er...there's no way any other explanation could be kept secret from us!

(4)The elites who run the world might make mistakes sometimes but because they're the most intelligent and the richest people in the world they should be left to run it.

(5) The trillions in debt in which we now find ourselves can only be paid for by us-we were too greedy and we need to pay increased taxes and slash and burn now to get ourselves out of trouble.

(6) Depressions and wars (SHIT) happen (s) sometimes. It's called cock-up theory and it's the only show in town!

(7) Our soldiers in Afghanistan are the best in the world and if they seem to be losing to a rag-tag bunch of Islamists on motorbikes with AK-47s and copies of the Koran then that's simply because we've got some selfish politicians who won't spend the money on the right equipment for our boys.

If you don't acknowledge these self-evident truths you're a full-blown conspiracy theorist!

If you disbelieve any of these official truths...............well,you want yer bloody head examined!

LOL-you saps!

There's only one thing worse than a conspiracy theorist-that's a bloody sarcastic one!

Apostate should be deleted forthwith. He's taking the piss!

Hasbarat shills and cock-up theorists are welcome here!

If you've done your own research and come to conclusions that differ markedly from what you were told then-you're a racist, a gay-basher, an anti-semite, a.....I hesitate to say this because it's one of the worse things anyone can be-isn't it?

You're a bloody conspiracy theorist!

I'm just getting down to Malcolm Pryce's site just to get well away from these conspiricists!

Thank you again (?), anonymous poster. That's a great link.

It's been my suspicion for a long time, both in relation to Afghanistan and wrt the long game wrt China/ Russia.

Taliban funded by US taxes

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=131480§ionid=351020403

another news flash-the angloamericans have been bribing the taliban to let the nato goods and trucks pass through.

I know that the british ahve bene bribing the taliban for not attacking the british troops- sort of protection money being given to taliban by the briitsh.
I wonder if england would pay some money toslovakia not to play so well and allow england get away with one goal wo=in int he world cup last match? it fits with their usual strategy. attack; if not successful then bribe.
they have bnever been the one to fight like man.

Ha! Now that would be quite something!

So, who ends-up with the stones? The modern-day version of the Koh-i-noor. the riches of the dust. The bright, shiny baubles. The golden ants of Alexander.

I'm not sure what the outbursts about conspiracy theory are supposed to mean.

I said you don't have to be a dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist to find the OBL-FBI issue odd.

I, however, do happen to be a dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist.

So there.

So, Malcolm, you are the 'KingofWelshNoir'. Good to meet you.

Nice to meet you, too, Suhayl

somebody

My first name is not Abu. The soldier who obeys his orders is exercising patriotic virtue, which deserves respect. I wonder whether you have ever put your life at risk for others, as he has. Lt Col James Carr-Smith's words were a fitting and well-deserved eulogy for someone who died serving his country. No way will I agree to despise someone like that, even if I don't agree with the decisions of politicians or a particular political party that sent him there. On the contrary, I salute him; may he rest in peace and know happiness in the world beyond our time and space, and be rewarded for his virtue.

"The soldier who obeys his orders is exercising patriotic virtue"

Patriotism isn't a virtue. Patriotism is in-group bias with membership in the in-group predicated on perceived national identity.

Prettified definitions of patriotism ("the true patriot wishes his country to be better") as nothing more than rationalisations.

Malcolm, this is easy. Please pay attention, and perhaps you'll get it.

1) The U.S. did not indict bin Laden for 911 because he was already indicted for other acts of terrorism, and was already on the Top 10 List. Spending hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars to get an indictment for 911 would be superfluous.

2) You can't seriously believe that the U.S. government pulled off 911, with the thousands of necessary parties, but is too timid to indict bin Laden for 911, because the FBI knows that the U.S. government did it.

3) You can't seriously be claiming that the FBI took part in 911.

4) The FBI and other professional agencies do not operate at the direction of conspiraloons. Thus, they're not going to take the unnecessary step of indicting bin Laden because right-wing nuts in the States and left-wing nuts in Britain keep calling attention to this silly issue. We all know you people will just move one to the next illusory issue.

Now I know that won't clear that up, as you've self-identified as a conspiracy theorist. No doubt that means you think the moon landings were faked, etc. etc.

Congratulations on being manipulated by the American right wing.

Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles on 'extended leave' [code well known to Craig] for suggesting peace talks with the Taliban [the 'enemy'].

301 young soldiers have died fighting the 'war' in Afghanistan...

'We will remember them'

HOW MANY MORE MUST DIE IN A POINTLESS CONFLICT??

Hi Larry

Thanks for taking the time to help me grope my way towards the light. I did as you requested and paid attention to what you had to say but found, alas, that you hadn't paid attention to what I said.

I didn't make any of the claims you 'rebut' . In questioning why the FBI had not got an indictment for OBL the implication was not that 'the FBI took part in 9/11' but that they probably don't have any hard evidence linking OBL to it. That is, after all, what FBI spokesman Rex Tomb said.

Your suggestion that they haven't indicted him because it would be too expensive certainly brightened my day. Maybe they should hold what I think you people call a bake sale.

Do you practise law in St Louis, Larry? Can you bring yourself to answer this very simple question?

Suhayl - yes.

Malcolm:

Congratulations on:

1. Being able to take a quote out of context, and not being able to consider, outside of your out-of-context quote, both (i) logic and (ii) evidence;

2. Being manipulated by the American right-wing Tim McVeigh types;

3. Your presumed continued search for Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster.

With you British nutjobs, I've been wondering for some time why you think Obama and his chief of staff don't uncover this vast 911 conspiracy and render the Republican Party a matter of history (after successfully executing all the 911 conspirators). For the right-wing nuts in America, who are the driving force for the generation of the dumbass claims that you believe in, this is not a problem - they simply claim that Obama is likewise part of the New World Order. But I don't understand how British left-wing nutjobs (like you) reconcile this.

"Maybe they should hold what I think you people call a bake sale."

Like most of what the British say when addressing Americans, that's just silly nothingness.

So far, in talking about (and only talking about Osama Bin Laden) the person who say`s he is `Larry from St. Louis` has moved the debate to...

davidicke.com
Lizard people
moon landings
Bigfoot
Loch Ness monster
New World Order

`Larry from St. Louis` it is YOU that is the `nutjob`.

@Abe Rene Apologies for misspelling your name. You are actually repeating yourself.

This is the sort of thing that is going on in the country that 'our brave boys' are restoring to a democracy as Cameroon and before him Broon and Bliar maintain. What a nonsense. Get the troops out NOW.

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/91872

US criminal investigators are examining allegations that Afghan mercenaries have been extorting as much as $4 million (£2.7m) a week from contractors paid with US cash and then funnelling the spoils to militants and bent officials....

Larry
'For the right-wing nuts in America, who are the driving force for the generation of the dumbass claims that you believe in…'

The problem is, mate, I haven't made any claims, apart from the one in which I opine that Angrysoba's Washington Post article was toothless.

Everything else you impute to me - Lizards, moon landings, Loch Ness monster etc - you have invented.

Well, Malcolm Pryce, the claim being made was that according to the FBI, Osama bin Laden WASN'T behind the 9/11 attacks. Here's the quote again:

"Redders asked:

"So Osama Bin Laden wasn't behind 911 then?" "

Mark Gobell says:

"Well, not according to the FBI he wasn't."

So, Malcolm Pryce, are you saying that according to the FBI Osama bin Laden WASN'T behind 9/11? The article I linked to DOES NOT SAY the FBI DON'T THINK Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks. You have provided NO EVIDENCE for saying that the FBI DOES NOT BELIEVE Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11.

What you probably don't know is that the FBI were investigators for the embassy bombings in which they went to Kenya and Tanzania. That is why those attacks are on the list of the FBI's most wanted page.

Whereas, controversially, the attacks on 9/11 were deemed acts of war.

Anyway, the State Department has its own wanted list on which Osama bin Laden features and on which he is blamed for the 9/11 attacks:

http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/index.cfm?language=english&page=Bin_Laden

somebody/amk

I did not repeat my earlier statement. Patriotism involves the sacrifice of self for others, and that is why it is virtuous.
The Morning Star is Communist propaganda, but its allegations, if true, indicate that the Americans haven't worked hard enough to stamp out corruption which was one of the causes of the Taleban gaining popularity in the first place, and could therefore bring all their efforts to nothing once they leave.
None of this takes away from the personal merit of soldiers who serve their country. The people criticising them have not actually put himself at risk for others, as they have, and therefore do not merit the same respect.

`Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”`

`Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”`
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2623

"Two days after the Twin Towers fell, George W. Bush stated:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." (Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001.)

Yet, incredibly: “Two dozen members of Osama bin Laden’s family were urgently evacuated from the United States in the first days following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington”, CBS reported.

The Bush and bin Laden family had, of course, been partners in the giant Carlyle Group (arms, construction) for years.

“Even though American airspace had been shut down ... the Bush Administration allowed a jet to fly around the US., picking up family members from 10 cities, including Los Angeles, Washington DC, Boston and Houston.”

"The skies over America in the days following 9/11 were in lock-down mode, yet the entire family of America’s number one enemy is released ... not a single American citizen could fly ... yet ... the family of the evil mastermind who allegedly used commercial jets (to destroy buildings, departs on) commercial jets! This sort of irrational behavior ... makes it look as if the Bush Administration knew that Osama bin Laden was not responsible for the attacks ... " (1)

Just five months later, George W. Bush was asked:

"But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?"

The President: " .... I — I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him ..." (transcript from Press Conference.)"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19828

Must we keep going over this? You people are worse than creationists.

http://911myths.com/html/family_flights.html

Hi Angry

No, I'm not claiming the FBI don't believe OBL was behind 9/11, I was responding to your comment where you said

'…Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI replied...blah blah blah…' following which you linked the Washington Post article (with the cry of 'not a-fucking-gain!')

I inferred from this that you were citing the article as some sort of rebuttal to the claim about Rex Tomb. As such, I said it wasn't much of a rebuttal.

Hey Larry

I've just read your 9/11 myths link about the family flights. Wow that was one hell of a grilling the FBI gave those people. They asked them if they'd had any recent contact with OBL or knew anything about terrorist activity.

And guess what they said.

No, go on, guess.

That's right, they all said, 'No.'

OK guys, have a nice holiday, sorry to have kept you!

What a shame they didn't call in that Andy Sipowicz from NYPD Blue. He was much better at getting the perps to incriminate themselves.

Malcolm,

They had not committed a crime.

Nowadays in Western Civilization we generally don't hold a person criminally liable for the actions of one of his or her relatives.

That's a real big family there. I actually met one of them through work a while back.

Yes, fictional TV characters are sometimes able to extract confessions. But since those people didn't actually commit any crime, I'm not sure that we should have assigned a fictional TV character to the task.

No Malcolm, the claim made was that the FBI don't think OBL did 9/11. That is the only possible interpretation of this exchange:

" A: "So Osama Bin Laden wasn't behind 911 then?"

B: "Well, not according to the FBI he wasn't."

Then there was "Rex Tomb of the FBI blah blah blah blah..."

The link doesn't show that "according to the FBI" Osama bin Laden WASN'T behind the 9/11 attacks".

It's a distinction of course from saying they haven't indicted him and maybe you think I am being pedantic but if you're argument rests on pedantry then don't be surprised if it is dismissed with pedantry.

"The Washington Post article you link to is hardly a stinging refutation of the point being made is it?"

Yes, it is. It completely root-and-branch refutes the claims being made that the FBI don't think Osama bin Laden done it because it even speaks to the very source of your claim.

Oh, and check out the State Department website which utterly refutes this:

"So, Redders, do you know something that the US Government doesn't ?"

"That's a real big family there. I actually met one of them through work a while back." Larry

Really? Now that is very interesting, if not downright tantalising. Can you tell us more, Larry? Was this in DC? On K Street, or J street, or one of those?

I have an old glossy magazine from the 1980s, entitled, 'Arts and the Islamic World'. It ran for only a few editions, I think. It was really very well-produced, very substantial. On the back cover, there is a full-page illustrated advert for 'The Bin Laden Group'. Of course, at the time it meant nothing, but glancing at it now that even the name has become somewhat iconic, it's a different matter. I wouldn't want to carry it around on the underground, say. It would freak everyone out. It's an enormous family - a multi-everything business concern, really.

From your earlier comments (on another thread) on Karimov's lawyers in the USA and from this brief allusion to someone from the Bin Laden family, are we to assume that you work in the field of corporate law?

Angry

Please read more carefully what I actually said and then respond to claims I do make rather than impute to me ones I didn't.

Larry

Fine, you're a lawyer and know more about that than me. So just to be clear :

We have a mass terrorist outrage that kills 3,000 people.
The chief suspect is one Osama bin Laden.
Twenty members of his family make hurried plans to leave the country.

Are you saying that, in such a situation, the authorities are powerless to prevent them leaving, even if they suspect the family members may have information that would be useful to their inquiry?

Angry

Re-reading the whole thing it seems I owe you an apology.

My position was not that the FBI actively think OBL didn’t do it, just that they have no hard evidence for the claim that he did.

As such, when I saw you you add blah blah to the Rex Tomb quote and link to the Washington Post article I assumed (mistakenly) you were challenging the oft-cited claim that they have no evidence.

In fact, you were challenging a point made not in your post but in a previous one, which I missed because it was hidden in a triple negative:

So Osama Bin Laden wasn't behind 911 then?
Well, not according to the FBI he wasn't.

Well, that's okay Malcolm.

My position is that the FBI do not dismiss the idea that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11.

It is an oft-used sleight of hand by certain conspiracy theorists (and I don't necessarily include you here) that they go from the propostion "no evidence of X" to "evidence of no X" very easily. This isn't so terrible, from what I hear a lot of doctors do the same thing (I was reading Black Swans by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in which he pointed out the frequency with which this kind of mental sidestep happens even with statisticians and doctors despite their training).

Now, it can also be said that certain debunkers might make the same logical shuffle (and I am sure they do) in saying because there is no evidence for X, X did not happen.

However, I will now step outside the parameters of that discussion to say I do believe the FBI really think Osama bin Laden WAS responsible for 9/11 and many other government branches do too.

Did you hear about John O'Neil by the way, who was an FBI agent killed in the World Trade Center?

Thanks Angry

I did read about John O'Neil many moons ago; I don't know much about him, though, other than the basic facts in the public domain.

`However, I will now step outside the parameters of that discussion to say I do believe the FBI really think Osama bin Laden WAS responsible for 9/11 and many other government branches do too.`

No hard evidence to back that up.

angrysoba sounds like a conspiracy loon to me, the above is what angrysoba accuses other people who can`t produce "hard evidence" when they say things like...."However, I will now step outside the parameters of that discussion to say I do believe"....LOL.

angrysoba, go look up the
word "hypocrite"

"angrysoba sounds like a conspiracy loon to me, the above is what angrysoba accuses other people who can`t produce "hard evidence" when they say things like...."However, I will now step outside the parameters of that discussion to say I do believe"....LOL."

I was being ironic. Look it up.

Of course, the idea that the FBI don't think Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks is so stupid that only a conspiraloon could believe it.

"Of course, the idea that the FBI don't think Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks is so stupid that only a conspiraloon could believe it."

As YOU so often say to others angrysoba, where is your evidence to support your statement. Until you can give us hard evidence to back that up, you go into the conspiraloon bag of this blog.

Evidence.

"Of course, the idea that the FBI don't think Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks is so stupid that only a conspiraloon could believe it."

As YOU so often say to others angrysoba, where is your evidence to support your statement. Until you can give

As YOU so often say to others angrysoba, where is your evidence to support your statement. Until you can give

Well said, such a person should be a good sentence, or the future will be more rampant.

Very Interesting!
Thank You!

This website is awesome. I constantly come across something new & different right here. Thank you for that data.

good look!