USA planned the invasion of Afghanistan MONTHS before 9/11

[Phlegmak]

Hold on. You just selectively searched what I sent to only find denials. You ignored all of the admissions.

I searched Harpers and found this:

Mullah Muhammad Omar, supreme leader of Afghanistan's Taliban, condemned the Attack on America and claimed that Osama bin Laden was not responsible. “Mullah Omar condemns this act. Mullah Omar says Osama is not responsible,” said a Taliban spokesman. “We have brought peace to this country and we want peace in all countries.”

There's a precedent for these sorts of denials, but I can't mention it because of Godwin's Law. That's why I haven't mentioned it before. Alright, alright, I'll say it! Holocaust denials. People who admire a certain evil man deny the wrongdoing he's been accused of. Same thing happened with September 11th. The people who admire bin Laden deny he had anything to do with September 11th.

By the way, why is it not possible in your opinion that Mullah Omar and bin Laden were lying when they denied it? Especially since bin Laden admitted he was involved with September 11th multiple times?

and the killer:

The major American television networks agreed, out of patriotism, they said, to a request by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice not to broadcast future statements by Osama bin Laden; Rice said she was concerned about secret messages being communicated to “sleeper” terrorists in the United States but did not reveal how she would prevent such evil-doers from viewing the speech via the Internet or satellite television.»

What's so damning about that? Airtime is exactly what terrorists want.

Thanks for the good info about how Bin Laden has been blamed or 9/11. I didn't know that Rice actually tried to prevent Bin Laden's denials getting airtime in the US. Curiouser and curiouser!

You ignored how he admitted it. Multiple times.

 

[Xenocrates]

Hold on. You just selectively searched what I sent to only find denials. You ignored all of the admissions.

Yes true, that's because there's evidence both ways. I don't know which is true.

By the way, why is it not possible in your opinion that Mullah Omar and bin Laden were lying when they denied it? Especially since bin Laden admitted he was involved with September 11th multiple times?

Maybe there are two Bin Ladens? This might seem a strange hypothesis, but when one man is both denying and admitting something in seperate interviews, it has to be considered as a possibility. You are saying that they both denied it and admitted it, which seems odd to me.

What's so damning about that? Airtime is exactly what terrorists want.

Airtime is what innocent (innocent in terms of this specific charge) men want too. We don't know which he is. As I linked a couple of pages back http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/boyle.htm:

As you recall Secretary of State Colin Powell said publicly they were going to produce a white paper documenting their case against Osama bin Laden and their organization Al Qaeda. Well, of course, those of us in the peace movement are familiar with white papers before. They're always laden with propaganda, half-truths, dissimulation, etc. that are usually very easily refuted after a little bit of analysis. What happened here? We never got a white paper produced by the United States government. Zip, zero, nothing.

What did we get instead? The only statement of facts that we got from an official of the United States government was Secretary of State Colin Powell himself. And let me quote from Secretary Powell. This is the October 3 edition of the New Speak Times. "The case will never be able to be described as circumstantial. It's not circumstantial now." Well as a lawyer if a case isn't circumstantial, it's nothing. That's the lowest level of proof you could possibly imagine is a circumstantial case.

I don't know whether Bin Laden is guilty of this specific act (9/11) or not, but what I do know is that the US hasn't made its case. If the above quote is correct (and it's from a guy who should know what he's talking about), they haven't got a case to make!

 

[Phlegmak]

Yes true, that's because there's evidence both ways. I don't know which is true.

It sounds like you're just saying we'll agree to disagree.

 

[Xenocrates]

I doubt anyone else gives a hoot anymore but this was on the BBC today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5006244.stm

Noor Jehan was allegedly shot by relatives after being declared guilty of adultery under an ancient tribal tradition in southern Pakistan.

She managed to crawl for help after being left in the ditch last month.

The BBC's Aamer Ahmed Khan in Karachi says hundreds of women are killed every year in Pakistan in the name of "honour", usually related to marriages.

Pakistan is an ally, the Taliban weren't. As far as human rights go, there's no difference. As far as cooperating with Washington goes (or at least appearing to), there's a LOT of difference.

Just in case anyone still thinks that the US invaded Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons.

GL Phlegm!

 

[Phlegmak]

Pakistan is an ally, the Taliban weren't. As far as human rights go, there's no difference. As far as cooperating with Washington goes (or at least appearing to), there's a LOT of difference.

Just in case anyone still thinks that the US invaded Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons.

GL Phlegm!

I'm guessing GL means Good Luck.

Why do people keep lumping me into groups in which I don't belong? I hadn't stated that the US invaded Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons. The majority of my contentions in this thread were details which I strongly disagreed with you and zulu9812.

The Taliban really were worse than Pakistan is now. However, Pakistan is still repressive. The statements I just made are true. As far as human rights go, they're different in degrees, but perhaps not with intentions. In other words, women in Pakistan and Taliban Afghanistan were treated as subhuman, but in Taliban Afghanistan, it was worse.

Also, the Taliban were the government (the guys in charge, anyway); honor killings in Pakistan are not condoned by the government. So you're comparing different things.

These sorts of honor killings still go on today in Afghanistan, India, and parts of northern Africa I believe. Iran too, I think. Also, in Bosnia, raped women bring shame to the family; unlike central Asia, the women aren't killed by their own families. So this honor crap exists outside the Asian/African Muslim world too.

 

[BasketCase]

It's one of those things that makes no sense, but appears to have some benefit in reducing conflict.

What is it that makes conflict okay as long as it doesn't cross a border line? The U.S. invades Iraq. Meanwhile, there's a civil war in Sudan that (as far as I know) is staying inside Sudan. What makes the one worse than the other?

What's the difference incurred by the presence of national borders?

 

[Kayak]

What is it that makes conflict okay as long as it doesn't cross a border line? The U.S. invades Iraq. Meanwhile, there's a civil war in Sudan that (as far as I know) is staying inside Sudan. What makes the one worse than the other?

What's the difference incurred by the presence of national borders?

Slight correction. I believe it was beginning to migrate into Chad and some of the other surrounding countries.

 

[BasketCase]

In which case I'm glad I added the "as far as I know" bit.

Anyway, the question I'm asking is concerned with incidents (such as a civil war) before they migrate across the borders. As long as it stays inside the line, various UN agencies complain and ask people to play nice, but don't actually do anything. The minute it crosses a border, people worldwide are seething with rage.

What makes killing (or state religions or loss of womens' rights or whatever else) acceptable as long as it stays inside The Line?

 

[zulu9812]

You left something out: a philosophy that supports religion imposed by force, is also a threat to your lifestyle and ideals.

No. The Taliban were never a threat to me. But Tony Blair is.

 

[zulu9812]

So, assuming this is true, it's a bad thing that the United States decided to stop supporting the Taliban?

Considering that the usual liberal critque of Afghan-American relations is that the US was "supporting" the Taliban, I expected that this thread would be jubilant. But, of course, it's not.

The simplicity of your thinking is extraordinary. Has it occurred to you that America is quite comfortable with supporting horrific regimes when it suits them, i.e. morality comes and goes but interests are constant?

 

[MobBoss]

No. The Taliban were never a threat to me. But Tony Blair is.

I am sure the people in the WTC thought the same exact thing.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

right zulu, because other countries dont do that same crap? What a dillusional world you live in if you think only the US can do wrong

 

[zulu9812]

right zulu, because other countries dont do that same crap? What a dillusional world you live in if you think only the US can do wrong

I assume that you are referring to my post 2 posts above your own. Actually, Britain does the same thing. Britain supported Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, despite documented evidence that Indonesia was using napalm against civilian villages.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Right, my point is that the US isnt the only country in history to do this, in fact i believe almost every country is guitly of this kind of thing; people just seem to forget that these days and are just 'horrified' that the US has done this.
I find it rather ironic that we do that, playing nations off of each other like that, its smart in the politcial sense, but I'm far from for it in the ethical sense