Afghanistan — A suicide bomber driving a truck attacked an advance NATO combat post in central Af

Originally posted by NeverForget
reply to post by MasterGemini

 

Yes, maybe individualw have private interests (including men within those countries too), but you can't blame the American goverment for that.

If the "goverment" or the "people" knew about that, and if there was evidence it was American officials, then they would be condemned, protested and voted against.

Got evidence for that anyway? Or just conspiracy theory?

I know the War on Drugs has been inneffective, but you can't blame goverments for the private finnancial interests of greedy men or "gangs".

edit on 11/9/2011 by NeverForget because: (no reason given)

Evidence of Kissinger working for the oil companies in Afghanistan?
Kissinger, Unocal, Enron and Cheney
www.btinternet.com...

"In November 2001, the Washington Post examined the history of the Unocal pipeline in a story headlined 'How Afghanistan Went Unlisted as Terrorist Sponsor.' That story also mentioned Kissinger's role: 'Unocal appealed to the Taliban and received assurances that it would support a $4.5 billion project rivaling the trans-Alaska pipeline. The deal promised to be a boon for the Taliban, which could realize $100 million a year in transit fees.' But Unocal also needed U.S. backing. To secure critical financing from agencies such as the World Bank, it needed the State Department to formally recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's government. 'Unocal hired former State Department insiders: former secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger, former special U.S. ambassador John J. Maresca and Robert Oakley, a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan.' Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan-born former Reagan State Department adviser on Afghanistan, entered the picture as a consultant for a Boston group hired by Unocal. Khalilzad and Oakley had dual roles during this period because the State Department also sought their advice. Khalilzad is now one of President Bush's top advisers on Afghanistan.' Which makes me wonder whether Kissinger should be asking questions -- or answering them." Oh, Henry Salon.com, 3 Dec 2002

Or that there is Lithium in Afghanistan?
Massive Afghanistan Lithium Deposit (As In Batteries) Could Alter Nation’s Economy
gizmodo.com...

Or that the Taliban outlawed heroin?
Taliban's Ban On Poppy A Success, U.S. Aides Say
www.nytimes.com...

Seriously?

Got evidence for that anyway? Or just conspiracy theory?

Originally posted by neo96
yeah seems to me that clintons 4 chances to kill bin laden or "Arrest" him

we would have never went afghanistan for "oil"

Originally posted by MasterGemini
reply to post by beezzer

 

One little mistake.

Heroin growing was banned by the Taliban and they enforced that ban.

It picked up again once the USA invaded.

Fine. Whatever. Go back to growing sunshine, unicorns, and rainbows for all I care.

Stop shooting at us and we'll leave.

Easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy

I just love how some here love to associate news events with political rhetoric and their own personal agendas. I have seen a lot of it on here, and can we all just focus on the news article. Scores of soldiers were killed on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11. Perhaps, we can banter back and forth about why so many were killed in this latest strike by the ragtag bunch of mountain men known as the Taliban? Why we are there is immaterial and does not make the situation any better. Why does not matter anymore, because we are there and now what? Could of, should of, and would of is great and hindsight is 20/20. However, it serves no purpose to have conversations about that because it is like beating a dead horse.

What should be discussed at length is how nations participating in Afghanistan can bring this little saga to a close in a way which is amicable for not only the people of Afghanistan, but the the nations exerting their resources and manpower to see that Afghanistan does not disintegrate as it had after the Soviet Union withdrew in 1989. It may take longer than anyone could imagine, but Afghanistan cannot afford to fall into chaos and lawlessness as had been the case in the past. I don't want to see women rounded up and stoned in sports stadiums, more beheadings, schools burnt down, priceless artifacts destroyed, and other forms of medieval governance performed by the Taliban and other extremist groups. Just my two cents on the subject, and if anyone wants to continue beating the dead horse feel free. However, there are plenty of threads to rant to your heart's content, but I thought this thread was about a news event where 50 soldiers got killed by a suicide truck bomb? Carry on . . .

reply to post by MasterGemini

One little mistake.

Heroin growing was banned by the Taliban and they enforced that ban.

It picked up again once the USA invaded.

What mistake was made? What are you suggesting? That the American goverment was consciouss of the heroin production, and that it was the reasoning for the War?

Is that what your suggesting the user's "mistake" was?

You have no evidence that "USA" (as a whole) intended to profit from the production of drugs, none whatsoever.

There is evidence that the CIA have been caught in drug heists, but the user was referring to the reasons for the war in Afganistan and Iraq, not the greed of any individuals within the US goverment, or the greed of a global network of criminals.

The links you provided don't support your argument or conspiracies.

And your emoticons don't add any credence to your rebuttals.

reply to post by NeverForget


Did you miss the link about the Taliban banning poppies?

I was responding to a post that suggested poppy growing on this level was normal before the invasion.

What are you trying to argue about here? Facts are FACTS


Oh I see you were just trying to argue.

Fact poppy production and thus heroin production increased after the USA invaded. I already proved that.

None of that was conspiracy.

Originally posted by MrWendal

We have killed countless people in Afghanistan. Taliban, Al CIAduh, and innocent civilians.

Spellcheck can be your friend. It's "al Qaida".

It means "the base".

"Al CIAduh" translates back into English as "rtghjpokfcdfg".

reply to post by MasterGemini


So?

What's your argument? That the Americans are responsible because you correlated two events?

reply to post by NeverForget


ofcourse they would try to make profit from drugs, I mean they like to profit from war so why not drugs too?

Originally posted by nenothtu
]Originally posted by MrWendal

We have killed countless people in Afghanistan. Taliban, Al CIAduh, and innocent civilians.

Spellcheck can be your friend. It's "al Qaida".

It means "the base".

"Al CIAduh" translates back into English as "rtghjpokfcdfg".

I believe it was a pun, that suggests that Al-Quaida is an ellaborate hoax designed by the CIA.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Kind of hard to argue the intent behind it when the Taliban claim responsbility for the attack.

It was a suicie bomber and the base was intentionally targeted. Why does it matter what its referred to as?

I prefer the term homocide bomber, they use suicide bomber.... who cares..

I personally prefer "suicide bomber", but " 'splodey dope" runs a close second. As far as I'm concerned, "homicide bomber" applies to all bombers. The bombers who don't reap any homicides have their own term - "incompetent". It's just as well that they kill themselves in the explosion - saves us the trouble of having to track them.

Originally posted by David291
reply to post by NeverForget

 

ofcourse they would try to make profit from drugs, I mean they like to profit from war so why not drugs too?

"They"

Again, are you talking about the USA or American goverment as a whole, or members within who have private financial interests?

There are valid reasons for going to War

and then there are proliferating conspiracies about poppy fields and oil inheritence, bank fraud and private military contractors (e.g Haliburton) engaging in unlawful activities, which if were true, and exposed would be condemned by the UN and other nations.

reply to post by beezzer

Fine. Whatever. Go back to growing sunshine, unicorns, and rainbows for all I care.

Stop shooting at us and we'll leave.

Easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy

"Stop shooting at us and we'll leave."
Right. Your predecessors...the brutal Russians.... went after those rag tag guerillas and left in defeat. Just what makes you think the US would defeat the Afghans?

Even after 10 years... the worlds most powerful army, with all its armor, air support, state-of-the-art weapons etc., failed to defeat a bunch of poorly armed guerillas.

Originally posted by NeverForget

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by MrWendal

We have killed countless people in Afghanistan. Taliban, Al CIAduh, and innocent civilians.

Spellcheck can be your friend. It's "al Qaida".

It means "the base".

"Al CIAduh" translates back into English as "rtghjpokfcdfg".

I believe it was a pun, that suggests that Al-Quaida is an ellaborate hoax designed by the CIA.

Might have been 2/3 of a pun, also known as a "P-U!", but falls short as a pun. Not funny, not accurate. Has none of the requisites of a pun.

reply to post by nenothtu


I agree.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n
That's because we're trying to win hearts and minds.

Personally, I'm all for carpet bombing. Then send flowers and a letter of apology.

But that's just me.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Even after 10 years... the worlds most powerful army, with all its armor, air support, state-of-the-art weapons etc., failed to defeat a bunch of poorly armed guerillas.

Failed to defeat?

It's an occupation. We came and helped the Afghan Northern Alliance kick them to the curb and never looked back. I don't see them routinely shooting unarmed women at the local football field anymore nor are they freely roaming the halls of Government either. But they DO keep their hand in it by blowing up school children.

Originally posted by kn0wh0w

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Kemal
But oh, I forgot, Taliban is a product of the US...

This is one of my most favorite excuses people use......

what excuse?
you're denying that the US funded the taliban, trained them how to fight etc?

that the same people now called terrorist were called 'freedom fighters' when they fought Russia?

I'll deny it. Loudly. Let's have at it and finally get this non-issue settled.

reply to post by beezzer


LOL. You wit.

I'm all up for this "hearts and minds" tactic...... I'd rather not have an approach as grim as blowing up school children and other targets to achieve a goal.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind...but then again, you did say you'd send flowers and an apology letter

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I'm calling a load of bs.

just stinks..

Yup.. utter crap.

I'd really like to know what credible investigation determined it was a "A Taliban suicide bomber".. if there was an explosion on a Los Angeles street, it would take days if not weeks to weed through credible evidence and figure out who did what to who and why.

..yet in Afgan-iraq-istan these things are solved almost instantly, with a story line that always jives with the occupiers propaganda screed... amazing!!

Heck, with this type of investigative awesomeness.. why do we have professional police homicide detectives??.. just let a few grunts mull about the crime scene and assign blame... although something tells me every US homicide would become a terrorist act with the Taliban as suspects.