"Taliban condem 9/11 attacks" - Articles from 2001.

First of all, i would like to thank Davespanners for sharing this link Headlines from sep 2001 Some articles are still up, some have gone, but all the headlines are still there.

This article, for example, is still up to be read: Taliban condem 9/11 attacks

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Afghanistan's ruling Taliban condemned the hijacking attacks against the United States for a second time Wednesday and urged the U.S. not to attack them in retaliation. CNN's Nic Robertson said Taliban officials called the attack a "sad humanitarian catastrophe." The Taliban appealed to the U.S. not to attack Afghanistan because the Afghan people are already in a great deal of misery. Wednesday's statement came after a meeting between senior Pakistani diplomats and Taliban officials that was described as inconclusive. Pakistan is one of the only countries that recognizes the Taliban government. Taliban officials also denied that Osama bin Laden, the millionaire Saudi fugitive blamed for past terrorist attacks against American targets, was behind the attacks.

They even used logic and stated it was far too much for one man to organise. As you know, the blame changed from the Taliban to Al-Queida quite smoothly, to the point now where people say without a blink of an eye that it was Al-Queida who did the attacks and not the Taliban, yet we went into Afghanistan because we were told that is was the Taliban who did the attacks.

Thought this was worth a thread, and the list of articles is defiantly worth a quick look through.

reply to post by Trolloks


And you wonder why 92% of the people in Afghanistan have no idea why the US and UK Government are fighting a war in Afghanistan in the first place.

92% of the Afghan people never heard of the 9/11 attacks

As you know, the blame changed from the Taliban to Al-Queida quite smoothly, to the point now where people say without a blink of an eye that it was Al-Queida who did the attacks and not the Taliban, yet we went into Afghanistan because we were told that is was the Taliban who did the attacks.

reply to post by Trolloks


For the sake of being historically correct, they went into Afghanistan because the Taliban were alledgedly harbouring Osama Bin Laden, not because they held the Taliban responsible for the attacks, if I´m not mistaken.

Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze
reply to post by Trolloks

 

And you wonder why 92% of the people in Afghanistan have no idea why the US and UK Government are fighting a war in Afghanistan in the first place.

92% of the Afghan people never heard of the 9/11 attacks

thanks for pointing this out.

this is absolutely sick.

and yet people are suprised when they're fed up with the occupation and start taking matters into their own hands...

those godforsaken 'terrorists'

reply to post by CaptainInstaban


And funny how Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan all these years till he was just "found" and "killed" earlier this year!

Even after that, we are still fighting the Taliban in the name of "peace and freedom"!

I seriously wonder how long they can keep running this BS before the people realise that we have literally spent trillions of taxpayers money fighting illegal wars just to secure Oil, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Financial contracts for Multinational Corporations and Banks.

I do not recall blame for the attacks ever being placed on the Taliban. The Taliban was blamed and had to be removed from power because they were "harboring terrorist" and "supporting terrorism".

But let us not mention how the Taliban actually offered to give up Bin Laden if the US could show any proof at all that he was behind the attacks, and the US refused. Let us also not mention how the Taliban offered to give up Bin Laden if the US would agree to stop carpet bombing the country...and again the US refused.

Apologise if i was not correct about the blame game, im just trying to remember the news stories, i was only 12 at the time :s

I do know i didn't hear about Al Queida for a few years after though, and Afghanistan and Pakistan where blaming each other. And turns out he was in Pakistan.

Taliban 'offered bin Laden trial before 9/11'
english.aljazeera.net...

"Even before the [9/11] attacks, our Islamic Emirate had tried - through various proposals - to resolve the Osama issue. One such proposal was to set up a three-nation court, or something under the supervision of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference [OIC]," Muttawakil said.

"But the US showed no interest in it. They kept demanding we hand him over, but we had not relations with the US, no agreement of any sort. They did not recognise our government."

"Afghanistan was one of the first few governments that condemned the attacks,"
"Neither for the US, nor for Afghanistan - and the Afghan people - the attacks were not a good thing. Because subsequent to those attacks, many more people have died here in Afghanistan.

" That attack was a disaster on civilians, and on the pretext of that attack, disasters have been afflicted on the people of Afghanistan and Iraq,”
We condemned the attacks because the people targeted were defenseless civilians, women, children, Muslim and non-Muslim. But al-Qaeda praised it.

" Days after 9/11, with the US military campaign looming, the Taliban government convened an advisory gathering of over 1,500 religious scholars at a Kabul hotel to discuss what to do with bin Laden. The scholars concluded that the Taliban government should ask bin Laden to "leave the country voluntarily."

"The Americans said that even if he leaves, they will search any place in Afghanistan that they wanted with their military forces. They wanted him dead or alive."
"Their requests and demands were based on a logic of war. They were preparing for it - preparing their planes in the Gulf and working with Pakistan to open a route. Their decision to go to war was definite."

WTF......thanks for bringing this to my attention s+f

So if the US didn't try and resolve this diplomatically by exhausting all avenues,
Then that officially makes this a war crime Yes? No?

Just post 9/11 before America attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, the whole world was behind the USA

Yasser Arafat immediately gave blood, and sent it to New York offering to "spill the blood of any in his organisation who took part in this horrendous act"

Castro offered the same medical help etc, even though the embargos for years had destroyed there healthcare systems.

Even Putin offered anything he could do, what do we see later Russian bombers skirting Canada and the north British coast Nuclear Bombers that is.

The Taliban as mentioned, the US had the world in its hands, totally backing it.

Bush Cheney and Rumsfield Destroyed the whole dynamic within weeks, with actions and words like "crusade" "axis of evil" etc etc.

The biggest Geo Political mess up of all time.

Kind Regards,

Elf

You guys should watch some of the NatGeo and indie documentaries on the Taliban, 9/11, saddam, Iraq/Iran, Russias invasion of Afganistan and Bin Laden. If youre just now seeing an article from 2001, you really should.

Pre-emptive,
Im not taking sides or trying to troll, nor telling you buy into the "MSM" I just think its important that you view all sides of the issue and not go with the typical Oh its about OIL and contracts! comments because it fits the status quo around here. Just asking that folks observe and compare points made to what you find with time is all.

My personal opinion thus far- those people were living in very oppressed conditions and I dont think the answer to that was war, but they did and do need help. You will be surprised at what you see in those docs. Both good and bad but you will be a little more informed in the long run.

reply to post by Trolloks


You have missed the point. The Taliban were allowing groups to utilise Afghan territory. Prior to the events of 2001 cruise missile strikes were carried out on training camps in 1998. These were in retaliation to attack on embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The history of the Taliban allowing the likes of Al Qaeda to utilise their territory was there.
The Taliban admitted that Bin Laden was their guest and had been there since 1996. As part of their reply to the US ultimatum and bombing during 2001 they considered putting Bin Laden on trial. In the eyes of the US the Taliban were aiding and providing Bin Laden with support hence the invasion.

TJ

And the Taliban also said if you give us the evidence that Osama Bin Laden did it then we'll try him and kill him ourselves.

America's response was no sorry, we cant give you any evidence, but we are going to invade your country if you dont hand him over. How convenient.

And now we have America aiding Al-Qaeda in Libya, which in reality means they are guilty of treason.

This was never meant to be about truth, they've opened a war on terror that never has to end, there is no fixed enemy, once again the Americans(and most of the rest of the world) are shown to be the slaves of the corrupt that they really are.

Bin Laden denies 9/11 attacks

DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands. In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"Personal reasons", not religious.

Its a shame that only a few articles are still up, but every now and then something interesting comes up that have yet to be taken down and covered up.

2.1 Jus ad bellum

2. Right intention. A state must intend to fight the war only for the sake of its just cause. Having the right reason for launching a war is not enough: the actual motivation behind the resort to war must also be morally appropriate. Ulterior motives, such as a power or land grab, or irrational motives, such as revenge or ethnic hatred, are ruled out.

(Revenge?)

4. Last Resort. A state may resort to war only if it has exhausted all plausible, peaceful alternatives to resolving the conflict in question, in particular diplomatic negotiation.

(Exhausted All Alternatives?)

5. Probability of Success. A state may not resort to war if it can foresee that doing so will have no measurable impact on the situation.

(Obvious from the get go)

6. Proportionality. A state must, prior to initiating a war, weigh the universal goods expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils expected to result, notably casualties.

(Proportionate?) what a joke

plato.stanford.edu...

Actually none of that is "covered up" it is archived and it very much available in the form of video because... no one is hiding the information. I just told you where it was but you know.. have fun digging.

Whether Taliban had anything to do with the attacks or not, I am not going to feel sorry for them. It was not a legitimate government, just a bunch of religious savages oppressing their own people, and the country was a mess long before invasion.

Originally posted by Trolloks
Bin Laden denies 9/11 attacks

Its a shame that only a few articles are still up, but every now and then something interesting comes up that have yet to be taken down and covered up.

edit on 11-9-2011 by Trolloks because: (no reason given)

Taken down and covered up? Seriously? You are simply relying on one alleged quote from Bin Laden. See the following for quotes since that 2001 news report. Also take into consideration quotes from Al Q's second in command, Al Zawahiri and the hijackers Martyrdom tapes.

www.911myths.com...

TJ

Originally posted by Maslo
Whether Taliban had anything to do with the attacks or not, I am not going to feel sorry for them. It was not a legitimate government, just a bunch of religious savages oppressing their own people, and the country was a mess long before invasion.

lol, Russians had been trying to kill them for 20 years, they did pretty well fending them off, with some help of the same country who would then come back to kill them. America said, hey Russia dont invade Afghanistan, that is on our agenda, so they armed some of the Taliban to help fend off Russia until they came up with the lies of 911 as an excuse to invade.

By the way, America is run by zionist religous savages who not only oppress their own people but who oppress many countries around the world and they have alot more blood on their hands than any Afghan could dream off. So pretty large fail on your behalf there, and I guess no-one should have any sympathy for any Americans(or other westerners) that are killed either according to your hypocritical philosophy.

reply to post by tommyjo


no, that was one article with the quote, im not going to get all of them and list them. That would take a while.

The ones that have been taken down are typically the argument between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and many that claim the Taliban offered bin laden to america if they prove connections.

For a bunch of conspiracy theorists, a lot of you guys are all too eager to uncritically believe propaganda from avowed enemies of the United States. I especially like how America was supposed to hand all of its Bin Laden intelligence over to Afghanistan so they could "try" him.