Bombshell from London

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by curioustype

 

Okay. People, go to the IISS website and read the information for yourselves. There are quite a few inaccuracies in the blog mentioned in the opening post.

Lots of good information on the IISS website, but there isn't a report as colourful as the one mentioned.

That's because you only read a press release, not the report. The report does not appear on the website, but you can purchase it there for £51.

You mis-read the info you saw on the website. I'm sorry you are discrediting this report by a highly respected organisation on the basis of confusing the press release with the report itself, and therefore confusing others.

I believe the statements made in the actual report are very significant.

double post.
second line.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


No I stated that FBI said there was no hard evidence that Bin Laden planned 9-11. However KSM stated that Bin Laden did give his blessings for the attacks.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Yes, it is old hat to many of us, but coming from such a respected source, as you say, it not only vindicates the anti-war argument, but is a serious challenge to high level apologists for the war. It's the kind of document which Government ministers just can't easily dismiss.

I also believe that more 'mainstream' people will believe it now that IISS has made this statement.

.

reply to post by Asktheanimals



Lol! Spot on!
Second line

reply to post by wcitizen


I suppose in that context , its a worthy thing. I guess I get ahead of myself. I consider myself quite dense, so when I understand something fully , and can see all its little cogs, its guts exposed to the open air so to speak, I get confused when others seem to stroll nonchalantly by and let thier eyes slide over it without recognition.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

ummm KSM was in Afghanistan, before 9-11 as was most of bin laden's thugs. Also KSM may have been the Mastermind but Bin Laden Gave his blessings.

It is reports like this one that make me suspicious that we invaded Afghanistan to get KSM or Bin Laden..

US 'planned attack on Taleban' (Tuesday, 18 September, 2001, 11:27 GMT 12:27 UK )

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by wcitizen

 

All this expenditure in Afghanistan to kill 50 Al Qaeda? It didn't require an entire army to do that. Some say that corporate interests are why we have our troops there but I disagree. I believe they are they so that they cannot defend the US. They will be hung out to dry with zero support when the time comes. The US has been taken over by a covert military coup. The next step will be overt repression of the populace when the economy crashes within a year but they won't use US troops for that as they know which side they would choose. That's why they are on the opposite side of the planet.
I hope American citizens remember it is their duty to be the militia. This is our only hope for the long-term future of our country.

Yes, so many US troops elsewhere, makes me think the same thing.

I've also read elsewlhere that Israel wanted Afghanistan to be under US control, as it did Iraq, and that next on their list is Lebanon and Syria. Don't know how much truth there is in these reports, but it seems possible.

It seems clear to me that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda weren't the issue, just a pretext.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by wcitizen

 

I suppose in that context , its a worthy thing. I guess I get ahead of myself. I consider myself quite dense, so when I understand something fully , and can see all its little cogs, its guts exposed to the open air so to speak, I get confused when others seem to stroll nonchalantly by and let thier eyes slide over it without recognition.

Lol, I really know the feeling!

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

ummm KSM was in Afghanistan, before 9-11 as was most of bin laden's thugs. Also KSM may have been the Mastermind but Bin Laden Gave his blessings.

It is reports like this one that make me suspicious that we invaded Afghanistan to get KSM or Bin Laden..

US 'planned attack on Taleban' (Tuesday, 18 September, 2001, 11:27 GMT 12:27 UK )

Thanks for posting that, I was just going to have a look see if I could see anything which suggested the attack had been planned before 9/11.

If true, it kind of puts in context the immediate statements blaming AQ by some politicians, even on the day of the attack. They were incredibly quick off the mark to blame him.

It also adds weight to the evidence suggesting it was an inside job, in that they created the scenario they needed to action the pre-planned attack.

reply to post by rogerstigers


I agree, the whole war was sloppy, a 5th grader could have planned it better. There are reports that SF had bin laden in his sights at Tora Bora, but the Bush government allowed for the Taliban to have a 48 cease fire, more then enough time for Bin Laden and his cronies to flee into pakistan

reply to post by Maxmars


You've just summed it all up very nicely mate.

Every word of it is probably spot on.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why ptb want to attack websites like ours does it!

Cheers.

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


IMO i'd be amazed if Bin Laden ever went near an Afghan cave, let alone operated from one.

He's a wealthy bloke in his own right. He's probably a LOT wealthier now, after his slice of the action from the war profits of the Mil/Ind complex for his part.

I'd imagine he's had a face change, and lapping it up on a yacht in a riviera somewhere, counting his loot rather than sitting in a hole in Pakistan.

I'm worried that this is a case of smoke and mirrors. Yes, Afghanistan is a huge blunder. That part of the report is surely correct in its illustration of the magnitude of the problem. And yes, Yemen and Somalia are also becoming part of this over-bloated military escapade into ever-reaching territories.

But one part of the link really struck my attention, and I'm reading the actual report now because of it. I'm referring to its mention of how the blunder in Afghanistan is diverting attention away from Iran. If this study is used as a pretext to implement a massive overhaul of foreign policy geared more specifically towards the Iran-Hezbollah links, then that could play into the interests of elites.

I believe the specific portion mentioning this is located Here. It's a large forum that had many speakers, I think it's definitely worth reading just for the sake of being on the same page as the foremost experts. And if they are pursuing nefarious ulterior goals, then it's all the more reason to study everything they say.

Cheers - hopefully when I finish reading I'll have something more to add.

reply to post by wcitizen


Ah but....an excuse is different than a reason. The reasons of course are oil and poppy. The excuse, on the other hand, is terrorism.

They get a lot of mileage out of just that one word!

I liked this bit the most…

CIA chief Leon Panetta admitted there were no more than 50 members of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Yet US President Barack Obama has tripled the number of US soldiers there to 120,000 to fight Al Qaeda.

The IISS report goes on to acknowledge the presence of western troops in Afghanistan is actually fuelling national resistance.

So it just takes 50 “real” enemy, to justify 120k troops? Didn’t realise it was that easy for the war economy to invent us an enemy, to prevent the public seeing it as the enemy.
Obviously our soldiers are being attacked by thousands of Taliban daily; but Taliban are a long-settled, quite native people, of Afghanistan (not necessarily our enemy, but our enemy nonetheless because we demand they support our government, in their country (so to advance what Tony Blair ect dreamed would be the “conditions to fight extremism”).

Afghanistan is a failed experiment, its time to forget democracy and leave the Afghan people with a stable, secular, friendly dictatorship they can understand. The better its human rights, so much the better. But at the end of day Iraq & Afghanistan teach us in the 21st century, what they taught us in the early 20th century: I.e. democracy and tribal society are incompatible. In a democracy you vote for the person you think is best, in a tribe you vote for who the elders-tribe say is best.
Unfortunately these people tend to make their decisions based on: Autocracy, bribery, and cut-throat politics (sometimes literally!).

A low interest-respect for the lessons of recent human history, and ideological Political correctness (namely the fear of being labelled “xenophobic”) is what has kept our “enlightened” leaders onside, the post 9/11 wars.

reply to post by Liberal1984


I was about to post that bit too ... 50 vs 120 000.
50 goatherders vs 120 000 fully trained combat ready 21st century all american boys.

And the US is LOSING!!!!!

All the semantics aside, this is the real story. 50 enemies. And they even have 90% of the world's heroin supplies to help them. In addition to the authorised trillions, and the black op trillions too.

And the ENTIRE western world believes the fairy tales.

If you find this interesting... you might want to see another fluke of timing insofar as reports about "intelligence" from yet another think-tank of note.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Old news!

All you had to do was look at the business affiliations of Bush/Cheney and the rest who started this war. This war always has been and always will be about one thing only, oil and $$$.

I'm just sad US and foreign soldiers as well as thousands of civilians had to die just so those assholes can make more money. It's probably never gonna happen, but Bush & Co. should be put on trial for war crimes.