Yea. So was Hitler. And Stalin. And Saddam. And just about anybody else that attacks another nation without provocation. Most people do not understand that 9/11 was a single part in a complex operation with the eventual goal of allowing the Taliban to control all of Afghanistan. 2 days prior on 9 September 2001 the Taliban assassinated Ahmed Shah Massoud, leader of the United Islamic Front (more commonly known as the "Northern Alliance"). And on 11 September the Taliban also started a large offensive intending to drive the UIF from the Takhar Province. The Taliban was aware that the US was still providing assistance to the UIF. And part of the goal was to help sow confusion among the US Government, and that by the time they were aware of it they would control all of Afghanistan. They did not expect that the Taliban agents would be discovered as quickly as they were however.
I am sorry, but this is complete nonsense. "We have laws against this sort of thing"? Are you serious? We are talking about an operation from another nation, sponsored by another government. What laws were violated here? And what should we have done, sent in the World Police? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIPljGWGNt4
So most US presidents then, as well. You think 9/11 was part of a Taliban initiative to take control of Afghanistan? You are joking, right? LOL! So attacking 9/11... would stop funding to the UIF? You are joking. Which agents are you referring to?
Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, and now al Qaeda. This is why US troops need be in Afghanistan to be in position to quickly move into Pakistan (if/whenever necessary), to secure their 100+ nuclear warheads, and prevent them from falling into the hands of al Qaeda, the Taliban, Lashkar e-Toiba, and other assorted radical Muslim loons.
LOL! Yeah, because a thousands of troops will make a huge difference when terrorists still a nuclear warhead. It only took them ten years to catch one man.
Hell yeah! We wouldn't want to give any advantages to radical Muslim loons. Col Gaddafi killed: convoy bombed by drone flown by pilot in Las Vegas. Islamists emerge in force in new Libya. Oops.
MegadeathFan : You are on my ignore list. I'm not seeing any of your posts (or private messages). It's enough for me to know that whatever your saying, it won't have any knowledge of validity to it. I'm confident of that.
MegadeathFan : You are on my ignore list. I'm not seeing any of your posts (or private messages). It's enough for me to know that whatever your saying, it won't have any knowledge of validity to it. I'm confident of that.
This is nothing new here. Do you think it was mere coincidence that Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated 2 days before 9/11? And that the very next day the Taliban conducted a major operation against the Northern Alliance? Most of the members involved in US Intelligence (including John O'Neill) knew immediately that the assassination of the leader of the Northern Alliance was just the first part of a larger attack to come. Since the US was known as supporters of the Northern Alliance, if is often postulated that the idea of 9/11 is that it would keep the US so distracted that they would be unable to provide any kind of assistance to them as the Taliban took complete control of the nation.
I dont think it was a coincidence - but all information I can find says he was killed by Al Quada, which means it was not Taliban. The likely conclusion to draw is that Al Quada had him killed in order to have the Taliban offer greater support and endorse their activities. There is no evidence of your claim the Taliban wanted 9/11 or orchestrated its design. The attack on the Northern alliance is to be expected given their leader's untimely and clearly demoralizing end. LOL "most of the members"? What is your evidence for that? "It is often postulated" by who? To me that sounds like an entirely inaccurate and stupid assertion.
Long before that al-Qaeda had pretty much been operating as the Intelligence service for the Taliban for years. The Taliban gave them camps and support, and al-Qaeda performed any intelligence gathering, espionage, or special ops that were needed. No more "support or endorsement" was needed. al-Qaeda was not some kind of upstart organization, they had been doing attacks all over Asia for decades. And when the man who had just retired as the Special Agent in charge of the FBI Counter Terrorism Task Force is somebody who I would take very seriously. He had been following al-Qaeda for years, from attack to attack, and had recently retired from the FBI. He had been at his new job less then 3 days when he heard of the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud, and knew immediately something was going to happen soon. http://www.thehotjoints.com/2011/09/03/weekend-doc-block-the-man-who-knew/ None of this is new, it has been known for over a decade now.
Yes, it was. There was quite a serious amount of opposition to Al-Quada's presence and of course to 9/11. 'Evidence now available from various sources, including recently declassified United States State Department documents, shows that the Taliban regime led by Mullah Mohammad Omar imposed strict isolation on Osama bin Laden after 1998 to prevent him from carrying out any plots against the United States. The evidence contradicts claims by top officials of the Barack Obama administration that Mullah Omar was complicit in bin Laden's involvement in the al-Qaeda plot to carry out the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001.' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LB13Df01.html Sure, but that isnt evidence the Taliban was somehow co-opting those attacks for its own ends. 'A Pakistani official told the U.S. that Pakistan will always support the Taliban. This policy cannot change, he continued; it would prompt rebellion across the Northwest Frontier Provinces, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and indeed on both sides of the Pashtun-dominated Pak-Afghan border. But the Taliban were looking for a way out of the problem with bin Laden. The U.S. was urged to find a way to compromise with the Taliban, and possible ways that the U.S. and the Taliban might use to break the impasse were suggested, including the possibility of a trial in a third (Muslim) country, U.S. assurances that bin Laden would not face the death penalty, and a U.S. outline of what the Taliban would gain from extradition of bin Laden.[2] It is already known that the U.S. had demanded in secret discussions with the Taliban that bin Laden be handed over for more than three years prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The talks continued until just days before the attacks, according to a Washington Post report the month following the attacks. But a compromise solution such as the above that would offer the Taliban a face-saving way out of the impasse was never seriously considered. Instead, State Department officials refused to soften their demand that bin Laden face trial in the U.S. justice system. Officials described the U.S. decision to reject Taliban offers as a missed opportunity. Former CIA station chief Milt Bearden told the Post, We never heard what they were trying to say . We had no common language. Ours was, Give up bin Laden. They were saying, Do something to help us give him up. Bearden added, I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him. He was a pain in the neck, but this never clicked with U.S. officials.' http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26410.htm You are the first person I have ever heard who said the Taliban planned and directly condoned 9/11 from start to finish. No where does your course say John ONeill thought 9/11 was a Taliban plot. The truth is a lot of different.
The Taliban were/are both in bed with someone who might be very interested in such an initiative: The Pakistani ISI. Massoud's brother firmly believes they were behind his assasination in conjunction with AQ. The lines between the two are kind of blurry at times.
Sure but no one is seriously saying the Taliban spearheaded 9/11. The ISI is helping and has been helping the Taliban for a variety of reasons - attacking the US was not one of them.
I have never claimed that it was. However, the two organizations are pretty tightly linked. Kind of like 2 symbiots feeding off of each other. And for that claim that the Taliban back in 1998 was telling al-Qaeds not to attack the US, obviously that did not work very well, did it? The USS Cole was attacked by a an al-Qaeda suicide bomber in 2000. And if they were really upset with that attack and 9/11, they would have turned them over or expelled them from Afghanistan after the attacks. That did not happen. If anything, at most it was just a diplomatic prohibition. Kind of like Mission Impossible. "As always, should you or any of your I.M. Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions." But the timing of the Assassination, the attack on the US and the start of a major offensive by the Taliban are simply to many coincidences to be ignored.
