It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

That worthless toilet, Afghanistan???

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
This thread is in response to issues raised between GoodOlDave and myself surrounding the idea that 9/11 was an excuse to invade Afghanistan, described by GoodOlDave as a ‘worthless toilet of a country’.

Although that thread (about an unrelated topic) was closed due to incessant slagging between posters, I found this undercurrent to the original thread important enough to be worthy of its own thread. Why? Because according to this site, 1513 foreign soldiers have now been killed in the invasion of Afghanistan, 916 of which were United States soldiers. At the current rate, there is every chance this will reach the magical 1000-mark by the end of this year.

I find this topic critically important to understand, as the death toll of Afghan citizens and foreign soldiers is abhorrent, particularly given the background to the invasion. This thread will hope to open some eyes around ATS. What’s worse – that 1500 foreign soldiers have been killed for a ‘worthless toilet of a country’, or that they’ve been killed for the ulterior motive of people in positions of power?

I will begin be reposting the posts from the thread which has been closed, then add additional information afterwards for discussion. I realise this will be a long OP, but please don’t post opinions if you’re not prepared to read it in its entirety. I believe that is why so many threads wander off into obscurity. Take 10 minutes out of your day to read this properly – you might learn something about why your soldiers have been killed. If you can’t be bothered reading it all, please just mosey on to another, shorter thread. GoodOlDave, hopefully you don’t remind me reposting these quotes of yours – I think this is definitely worth a thread of its own…


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
They're simply swallowing the rubbish these web sites are feeding them becuase these web sites have a vested interest in NOT telling them the whole story.

...if anyone walked up to you and verbally told you that the gov't faked 9/11 as an excuse to invade that worthless toilet of a country of Afghanistan...



Originally posted by Rewey
You mean that worthless country which produces 92% of the world's opium, and with big, fat oil and gas pipelines running all the way through it?

You call Afghanistan a worthless toilet, as a reason why there is no sense in 9/11 conspiracy, yet you leave out the above facts. What were you saying above about 'telling the whole story'?



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Becuase A) the ones in charge of the opium are the local warlords, not the US. Insinuating the US is involved in opium production when the Afghans had been successfully growing opium there for the last 5,000 years on their own is absurd, and B) there are no "big fat oil and gas pipelines running all the way through it". That's an internet rumor those damned fool 9/11 conspiracy web sites keep spreading. Karzai wants a pipeline deal to bring in revenue, but the entire country is so [censored] up that noone wants to even install a storm drain there, let alone an oil pipe, as everyone knows it'll be blown up every ten minutes.

So what were YOU saying about, "not telling the whole story"?



Originally posted by Rewey
Sorry, but you’re a little off the mark here. I’ve been to Afghanistan twice in recent years – trust me, the pipeline is a done deal – has been for years. Just because it hasn’t been constructed yet means very little. I wish I could share with you some of the photos we’d taken for work. Believe me, it’s a done deal. Karzai was installed for precisely this reason. The US was even aware of his pro-Iranian stance, but knew it wouldn’t be an issue, given that the pipelines would be corporate-owned, not government-owned. This is all public record.

Also, forget what you read about the local warlords being in charge of the opium trade. In reality, they are nothing more than merchants in the field. The officials who administer the opium trade and allow the warlords to remain functioning (and therefore indirectly the Karzai administration) benefit far more greatly.


“In 2004 he [Hamid Karzai] rejected a US proposal to end poppy production in Afghanistan through aerial spraying of chemical herbicides, fearing that it would harm the economic situation of his countrymen” (Posner 2009).


Think about what that means – the ‘economic situation’ of his countrymen is that their primary export is opium. These are not the actions of a man combating ‘warlords’.

Further:

In a revealing news post by the Associated Press, published in the Texas-based Daily Times, Tuesday October 27, 2009, Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai’s brother Ahmed Ali Karzai was reported working for the CIA. The story tells that Ahmed Karzai has been receiving regular payment from the CIA for his work over the past eight years.

Since Karzai is suspected of involvement in the illegal opium trade of Afghanistan, there are also reports of division within the white house over CIA’s connection with Karzai. Even President Karzai is finding himself in increasingly tense relations with the US leadership due to his brother’s connection with the opium trade.

But a serious side of the issue is the question of CIA’s own involvement in furthering opium trade through its ties with important people in Afghanistan.
In the words of an American high military intelligence official in Afghanistan, this makes the US intelligence ‘backing thug’ in the Afghan crisis. Ahmed Karzai is being used by the CIA even to communicate with locals loyal to Taliban and the fact that CIA spokesman George Little has declined to offer any comment on the news story sounds like a silent confirmation of the messy things carried out by foreign intelligence agencies operating in Afghanistan.


There’s some more of the ‘full story’…


[more...]


[edit on 9-11-2009 by Rewey]




posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Insinuating the US is involved in opium production when the Afghans had been successfully growing opium there for the last 5,000 years on their own is absurd.



Originally posted by Rewey
Oil has existed in the middle east for millions of years. Are you going to tell me that the US has nothing to do with oil production in the region?

Is it absurd to suggest that as well?



So to go back to the original premise of this thread, it is important to clarify the chronology of the invasion of Afghanistan.

Firstly, why is it absurd to assume that the events of 9/11 were used/created/faked in order to invade Afghanistan? After all, British Prime Minister Tony Blair suggested exactly that…


"To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11." (Tony Blair. July 17, 2002)


If the British Prime Minister claims they couldn’t have simply invaded Afghanistan WITHOUT 9/11, why did they want to be there at all? Was there a previous agenda? One worth sending in foreign soldiers to die for?

Apparently so. It’s just that NORMAL people wouldn’t have agreed to it. Sure, send soldiers in to get that nasty bin Laden, but not for making money off natural resources. After all – that’s exactly how the Bush administration SOLD it to the public, less than four weeks after 9/11:


Bush announces opening of attacks
October 7, 2001
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said the United States opened a new front in the war against international terrorism Sunday with its attacks on Afghanistan's ruling Taliban and al Qaeda terrorist camps.

At the State Department, spokesman Richard Boucher said Sunday afternoon that the United States had a "clear right to self defense" following the September 11 attacks under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.


Was that the reason? Self-defence? Sure. The public will buy that. But what happens if they find out that the invasion of Afghanistan was planned well before 9/11? Quite simply, if the invasion of Afghanistan was planned BEFORE 9/11, then logic says that 9/11, ‘self-defence’ and finding bin Laden had NOTHING to do with it.

So why had the Bush administration told other nations of his intention to invade Afghanistan back in July 2001?


BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.
US 'planned attack on Taleban'
The wider objective was to oust the Taleban
By the BBC's George Arney

A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.


Hmmm... middle of October? That was a remarkably accurate prediction! But oust the Taliban? Why would they want to do that?

Maybe we can go back to the 1998 Congressional Record, in which Unocal’s Vice President of International Relations, John Maresca, addresses the House. Why was he concerned with Afghanistan way back then?


Unocal, as you know, is one of the world's leading energy resource and project development companies…

Mr. Chairman, the Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves. Just to give an idea of the scale, proven natural gas reserves equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region's total oil reserves may well reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per day. By 2010, western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day, an increase of more than 500 percent in only 15 years. If this occurs, the region would represent about 5 percent of the world's total oil production.


“Hmmm,” says Maresca. “What we need is a pipeline through Afghanistan!”


The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war.


Yeah - you remember those two decades of war, don't you? The one where the US gave bin Laden weapons to kick the Soviets out?


From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.


But would a pipeline like that be cost effective?


The estimated cost of the project, which is similar in scope to the trans-Alaska pipeline, is about $2.5 billion.


Let’s see… $2.5 billion, 60 billion barrels of oil… that’s about 4 cents for every barrel they want to suck out. Yep. That’s cost effective! So what’s stopping them?


As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline, CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.

…The U.S. Government should use its influence to help find solutions to all of the region's conflicts.


Firstly, that’s odd because the Bush administration used to think that the Taliban WAS going to let them build a pipeline!

[more...]


[edit on 10-11-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

US policy on Taliban influenced by oil
By Julio Godoy - November 20, 2001

They affirm that until August [2001], the US government saw the Taliban regime "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia" from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.


So why the change? How did they become the BAD guys?


But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, "this rationale of energy security changed into a military one".

"At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,'" Brisard said in an interview in Paris.


Oh. I see. Because they didn’t like the conditions a FOREIGN power was putting on THEIR oil reserves, they’re now the bad guys. Maybe a carpet of bombs would do them some good? Teach them some lessons.

Hmmm. If the Taliban won’t come to the party, who is going to help us with this pipeline?




Thursday, 13 June, 2002
Karzai elected Afghan leader

BBC: On Wednesday, up to 70 delegates walked out of the conference, complaining that they were being denied a free vote.

Many attending the gathering said they wanted to nominate and elect former King Mohammed Zahir Shah as head of state, but he ruled himself out of the race on Monday - amid allegations that his withdrawal and that of ex-President Burhanuddin Rabbani had been engineered by the United States.

The interim government led by Mr Karzai took office under a UN-brokered deal in December, after US air attacks helped opposition forces to overthrow the Taleban.


AAAAAHHHH! NOW it’s starting to make sense! US air attacks. Overthrow the Taliban. Karzai elected Afghan leader while delegates say they were denied a free vote. That must be what Maresca meant when he said:


…The U.S. Government should use its influence to help find solutions to all of the region's conflicts.


I’m with you now. Influence. Solutions. So what was the result of those air strikes, and putting Karzai into power?


Friday, 27 December, 2002, 11:23 GMT
Central Asia pipeline deal signed

By Ian McWilliam
BBC correspondent in Kabul

An agreement has been signed in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, paving the way for construction of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian republic through Afghanistan to Pakistan.

The building of the trans-Afghanistan pipeline has been under discussion for some years but plans have been held up by Afghanistan's unstable political situation.


So to all those who think of Afghanistan as a ‘worthless toilet of a country’, you should be mad that so many of your soldiers have been sent to die for a worthless toilet.

However, to all those who can see the ulterior motives of those in power, you should be even angrier. Hmmm… 92% of the world’s opium (with links to the CIA), access to more than 60 billion barrels of oil (more than 200 million, some say). Nope. That’s not what I’d call a worthless toilet. It’s just a shame that those who stand to benefit from it aren’t the same ones out there dying in the dust.


Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


No, no. Thank you, Mr Maresca.

Rewey



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 





will begin be reposting the posts from the thread which has been closed,

Perhaps you can first tell us WHY the original thread was closed.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Perhaps you can first tell us WHY the original thread was closed.


Perhaps you could make it all the way to the fourth line of the OP?


Originally posted by Rewey
Although that thread was closed due to incessant slagging between posters...


Rew



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 





Perhaps you could make it all the way to the fourth line of the OP?

Actually, I read your entire post. I just don't believe that MODS would close an entire post unless the OP were instigating the problems. However, since you want to flame me, rather than just answer my question, your flame has told me all I need to know- namely that you just can't resist flaming people. You need to reconsider the way you deal with members if you wish to have people respond to your threads.
However, I fully expect that you will continue in your ways, so have a nice life.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Rewey
 


Actually, I read your entire post. I just don't believe that MODS would close an entire post unless the OP were instigating the problems.


Wow - if that's what you consider a 'flame', you're very sensitive. I'm merely pointing out that the answer to your question is in the fourth line of the OP.

Hmmm... according to the timestamps, you managed to read the whole thing AND post a reply within one minute. Kudos to you, Professor!


However, since you want to flame me, rather than just answer my question, your flame has told me all I need to know- namely that you just can't resist flaming people. You need to reconsider the way you deal with members if you wish to have people respond to your threads.
However, I fully expect that you will continue in your ways, so have a nice life.


I've linked to the original thread for you. It had nothing to do with GoodOlDave and myself flaming. It was an entire thread established to achieve nothing but people aggresively airing greivances, which is why the mods closed it. I just found that the undercurrent through the thread first raised by GoodOlDave was particularly relevant.

Your choice on whether to continue...


[edit on 10-11-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
It's all about the m_f_ oil, regardless of the flag on its soil...

Thanks, Rewey. The quote from Blair is about as plain as it gets. He admitted that 9/11 permitted a very easy Afghan offensive to take place.

I don't get why the US and the rest of the coalition of the willing sent their 'defence forces' on an offensive campaign? It's all oxymoronic to me...



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I smell racism in the air...



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by RoyalCanadian
I smell racism in the air...


Ummm... can you elaborate there a little? Are you saying I'm racist for this thread, or GoodOlDave is racist for calling Afghanistan an worthless toilet? Not sure where you're coming from...

Rew



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Originally posted by RoyalCanadian
I smell racism in the air...


Ummm... can you elaborate there a little? Are you saying I'm racist for this thread, or GoodOlDave is racist for calling Afghanistan an worthless toilet? Not sure where you're coming from...

Rew


never mind. i guess its ok to make fun of other countries when your safe hiding behind a computer screen.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
All right, since you've asked...

A) Yes, Afghanistan is a toilet of a country. Whatever natural resources they had, they squandered in almost 30 years of war. They admit this themselves when they... yes they, not we... came up with the idea of building pipelines to bring in income. The Taliban approached Unocal back in the 90's with the pipeline scheme, but Unocal turned them down. Karzai went to his neighbors with the idea, and supposedly Pakistan has some interest, but not one inch of pipe has been lain by anyone because everyone knows anything anyone builds in a war Zone will be immediately blown up. This whole pipeline bit is nothing but rubbish those conspiracy web sites are churning out to get people all paranoid over shadows.

B) You conveniently forget that the US already Launched military action against Afghanistan under Clinton, when he ordered cruise missiles fired at Bin Laden's camps after the U.S. Cole bombing. It's only in your head that the supposed "military action" the U.S. was planning would have been anything More than that.

C) Yes, there is at Least some cooperation between the U.S. and the opium producers, but not for the reason you're trying to get people to believe. It's because to destroy the insurgency we need the active help of the Locals, and that includes the opium warlords who hate the Taliban. It's the same brutal mathematics of war that led FDR and Churchill to form an alliance with Stalin, because no matter how bad Stalin was, Hitler was worse. Karzai will deal with the opium warlords, once he finally has a country to worry about.

D) Our soldiers are NOT dying for a worthless toilet of Afghanistan, any more than our soldiers died for a worthless rockpile of Okinawa in WWII. They died because that's where the enemy is and it's the soldier's Job to destroy them, wherever they are.. If they instead were based in that worthless ice cube of a continent of Antarctica, they'd be fighting the enemy there, too.

E) None of this addresses the real issue, namely, that you're inventing supposed gov't staged terrorist attacks, for the invented purpose of invented secret plots involving nonexistent pipelines and invented shadowy deals between opium warlords and invented gov't drug pushers, based on absolutely nothing but innuendo and cynicism. I don't have to point out this is nothing but a runaway train of circular Logic, do I?

Jeez, not every single thing in the world just has to be the result of some secret CIA plot, you know. Pinch yourself, it's true: there really are people out in the world with agendas completely separate from what the U.S. wants.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right, since you've asked...

A) Yes, Afghanistan is a toilet of a country.


Again, don’t believe just the images you see on the news. They are carefully chosen to put across a certain perspective.

Here’s an example. Here’s a shopping centre from Kabul.



Here's one from Oklahoma.



Which one looks more like a ‘toilet of a country’?



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Whatever natural resources they had, they squandered in almost 30 years of war.


So, civil war makes a country a toilet? Don’t forget that the US had one of those too. And I ask this seriously – do you even know WHY there were decades of civil war in Afghanistan?

I’ll break it down for you. Here’s a brief summary, condensed from here:


In 1978 the PDPA overthrew the regime of Mohammad Daoud. The country was then renamed the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.

Once in power, the PDPA implemented a liberal agenda. It moved to replace religious and traditional laws. Men were obliged to cut their beards, women couldn't wear a burqa, and mosques were placed off limits. It carried out an ambitious land reform, waiving farmers' debts countrywide and banning usury. The government also made a number of decrees on women’s rights, banning forced marriages, giving state recognition of women’s right to vote, and introducing women to political life.

Due to some conservatives, who preferred the strict interpretation of Islam and its restriction on women’s rights, a number of increasingly violent uprisings occurred, in an attempt to return Afghanistan to traditional Islamic rule. The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was offered, and accepted, military help from the Soviet Union to stop the violent uprisings.

This ‘Soviet occupation’ was in support of Afghanistan’s democratic government, who wanted to remove the traditional Islamic rule and repression of women.


Now here’s the kicker…


The U.S. saw the situation as a prime opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union. As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces (including bin Laden) through the Pakistani secret service known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), with the intention of provoking Soviet intervention.


So what do you consider more of a toilet of a country – one which is trying to remove the strict traditional Islamic law in favour of a more liberal ‘western’ society, or one which sacrifices that country BACK to traditional barbaric Islamic law PURELY to make a third country look bad? If the US had never become involved in this way, Afghanistan would not have suffered decades of civil war or a return to traditional barbaric Islamic practices. Some people should remember that when they refer to Afghanistan as a backwards, toilet of a country, which still practices barbaric and repressive Islamic law – it’s because that’s what the US funded them to become.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
B) You conveniently forget that the US already Launched military action against Afghanistan under Clinton, when he ordered cruise missiles fired at Bin Laden's camps after the U.S. Cole bombing. It's only in your head that the supposed "military action" the U.S. was planning would have been anything More than that.


Strange, given that the US bombings of Afghanistan were in 1998, and the US Cole bombing was in 2000. I think you’ll find Clinton launched the bombings in response for embassy attacks in Africa. He also launched missile strikes into Sudan in retailiation. And how did that work out?


In Sudan, the missiles destroyed the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, where 50% of Sudan's medications for both people and animals were manufactured. The Clinton Administration claimed that there was ample evidence to prove that the plant produced chemical weapons, but a thorough investigation after the missile strikes revealed that the intelligence was unreliable. (Barletta, 1998)


Nothing like a bit of well-planned "military action", huh?


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
…because no matter how bad Stalin was, Hitler was worse.


What the? You’re kidding aren’t you? Hitler was created a means for the death of around 6 million people (although as the plaque outside Auschwitz was lowered by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum from 4 million to 1.1 million, I’ll assume this total number can be lowered accordingly).

Stalin killed directly (through gulag and executions) and indirectly (by famine through repression) between 10 and 25 million people (depending on source). How was Hitler worse? A less-manly moustache? Books just like to claim Hitler was worse because it makes people feel better that Stalin was one of the ‘good guys’. It’s amazing what you can turn a blind eye to when you try.

[more...]


[edit on 11-11-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
None of this addresses the real issue, namely, that you're inventing supposed gov't staged terrorist attacks, for the invented purpose of invented secret plots involving nonexistent pipelines and invented shadowy deals between opium warlords and invented gov't drug pushers, based on absolutely nothing but innuendo and cynicism.



You’re absolutely right. It doesn’t. But you’re missing the entire point of the thread.

Firstly, I’ve NEVER claimed that 9/11 was faked/staged to invade Afghanistan, although there are some people that do. You say they are stupid to assume something like that. Maybe look at some simple maths.

Possibly 200 million barrels of oil, at $80 per barrel (this morning’s Bloomberg price) makes… $16 trillion dollars. Plus 236 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves. That’s awfully inviting, don’t you think? Governments and industry would do some crazy things to get control of that. I’m not saying they DID, I’m just saying it is FAR from absurd to take that into account.

You guys love to jump on truthers who refer to Operation Northwoods, claiming it’s stupid as a reference as it never got past its conception phase. But this proves that it is not incomprehensible to people in power to sacrifice their own people, or meddle with the running of other nations purely to advance their own political agenda. So again, whilst I’m not claiming 9/11 was ‘faked’ for that reason, it is certainly not absurd to consider it. Stranger things have happened.

Secondly, why call them


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
…invented shadowy deals between opium warlords and invented gov't drug pushers, based on absolutely nothing but innuendo and cynicism.


…when you, yourself, claim there is co-operation between the US and the opium producers? What’s the result of this ‘co-operation’?


The U.N. report makes the dramatic claim that as much as 75 percent of the heroin sold in the United States and Canada could now be coming from Afghanistan…


Hmmm… that seems to be an awfully lot just ‘slipping through’, thanks to ‘co-operation’. But what would they know – they’re just the United Nations. They also said not to invade Iraq because there were no WMD’s – what would they know?!?

Rewey


[edit on 11-11-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
You know what's just hit me?

Today is Armistice Day... to signify the end of the First World War (I'm not sure if this is a big day in the US, or if it's just an Aussie/Pommy/Kiwi thing). We observe a minute's silence to reflect on people who have given their lives in years gone by, and wear a poppy flower as a sign of respect (as the red poppy was one of the first plants to spring up in the war-ravaged lands of France and Belgium).

Sad that now soldiers and poppies mean a completely different thing...



Rew

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Again, don’t believe just the images you see on the news. They are carefully chosen to put across a certain perspective.

Here’s an example. Here’s a shopping centre from Kabul.


Nice try, buddy. That's the Kabul City Center, which was opened in 2005, four years AFTER 2001. That shopping center didn't exist when the invasion began nor would it have, since it was built with money coming from countries that never recognized the Taliban gov't.



So what do you consider more of a toilet of a country – one which is trying to remove the strict traditional Islamic law in favour of a more liberal ‘western’ society, or one which sacrifices that country BACK to traditional barbaric Islamic law PURELY to make a third country look bad? If the US had never become involved in this way, Afghanistan would not have suffered decades of civil war or a return to traditional barbaric Islamic practices. Some people should remember that when they refer to Afghanistan as a backwards, toilet of a country, which still practices barbaric and repressive Islamic law – it’s because that’s what the US funded them to become.


Congratulations, Reway. You are officially the FIRST person I've encountered who actually supported the Soviets invading Afghanistan. Your fellow truthers must be so proud to count you as a supporter.

Oh, and if I may ask, just what do you think WE are trying to do in Afghanistan, now? Your own post of that modern shopping plaza shows we're tryign to bring it into the 21st century.



In Sudan, the missiles destroyed the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, where 50% of Sudan's medications for both people and animals were manufactured. The Clinton Administration claimed that there was ample evidence to prove that the plant produced chemical weapons, but a thorough investigation after the missile strikes revealed that the intelligence was unreliable. (Barletta, 1998)


Nothing like a bit of well-planned "military action", huh?


I myself consider it a military mistake, the same reason they bombed the Chinese Embassy in Serbia, during that UN air war under Clinton. You're the one who believes the gov't can never make any mistake, and that if it happens in politics, it had to have been planned, not me. So what reason was there for the gov't to intentionally attack the Chinese embassy and aspirin factory, exactly?


What the? You’re kidding aren’t you? Hitler was created a means for the death of around 6 million people (although as the plaque outside Auschwitz was lowered by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum from 4 million to 1.1 million, I’ll assume this total number can be lowered accordingly).


Jesus, flipping Christ. You're defending HITLER, now?!?. You just lost all credibility.

If you want to support the Soviets in Afghanistan and try to make Hitler look like he isn't as bad of a guy as everyone thinks he is, go right ahead. I'm not here to argue over any of that crap. I'm here to show how these 9/11 conspiracy stories are nothing but rubbish, and you haven't shown anythign that refutes the point.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey
What the? You’re kidding aren’t you? Hitler was created a means for the death of around 6 million people (although as the plaque outside Auschwitz was lowered by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum from 4 million to 1.1 million, I’ll assume this total number can be lowered accordingly).


This may be off topic, but are you Rewey claiming that only 1.1 million people died during the Holocaust? You do know that there were many other concentration camps? Hundreds of thousands of murders in Belzec, Treblinka(look up Operation Reinhard), Jasenovec, etc...

If you do hold on to this 1.1 million, prepare to be appropriately labeled an anti-Semite.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
This may be off topic, but are you Rewey claiming that only 1.1 million people died during the Holocaust? You do know that there were many other concentration camps? Hundreds of thousands of murders in Belzec, Treblinka(look up Operation Reinhard), Jasenovec, etc...

If you do hold on to this 1.1 million, prepare to be appropriately labeled an anti-Semite.


Of course I'm not suggesting that. Where have I ever said that???

I'm just saying that the 'official figure' we were always taught in school was around 6 million. When I went to the Auschwitz camp the first time, the original plaque said 4 million died IN THAT PARTICULAR CAMP (as an overall PART of the Holocaust). However, on my second trip, I noticed that the plaque had been changed, and the total number greatly reduced. When I asked about it, I was told it was a revised figure given by the A-B State Museum.

It's their figure, not mine. If THAT makes me an anti-semite, then I guess I'm in trouble...

Rewey

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
So the USA is allegedly spending $3.6 Billion per month on a war to bomb some bad guys back to the stone age? Wait a second...they already live in caves...


That seems to be quite a large amount of money to invest in a country half way around the world without planning for or expecting any sort of monetary return somewhere down the line.

thehill.com...



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Nice try, buddy. That's the Kabul City Center, which was opened in 2005, four years AFTER 2001.


Sorry – I didn’t realise you were calling Afghanistan a ‘toilet of a country until the US got there in 2001 and started building shopping malls’. You didn’t specify a timeframe.

The photos were merely used to demonstrate how choice of picture will greatly alter people’s perception of a foreign country they’ve never been to. The media do it all the time. I know – for 7 years I was a managing editor for a magazine based out of Toronto.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Congratulations, Reway. You are officially the FIRST person I've encountered who actually supported the Soviets invading Afghanistan. Your fellow truthers must be so proud to count you as a supporter.


I’m sorry – but why do you call the Soviets entering Afghanistan ‘invading’? I guess that means the US is ‘invading’ Iraq and Afghanistan now, right? You’re in there ‘helping their government and establishing democracy’? Isn’t that what the Soviets were doing?

Let’s have a look…


The PDPA invited the Soviet Union to assist in modernizing its economic infrastructure (predominantly its exploration and mining of rare minerals and natural gas). The USSR also sent contractors to build roads, hospitals and schools and to drill water wells; they also trained and equipped the Afghan army.


Hmmm… I think the key word there is INVITED. Was the US INVITED into Iraq or Afghanistan? Nope.

I honestly believe your problem here stems from relying on western sources for descriptive terms – the only reason you see it as an ‘invasion’ or ‘occupation’ is because it was during the time of the Cold War, and they were a Communist nation (ie. the BAD guys). Therefore, anything they did would be explained in a negative way. I don’t blame you for having that point of view, but I think it demonstrates the bias of “My First History Book” by G. W. Bush.

Secondly, you’re COMPLETELY dodging the issue here, like you have in your entire post. Can you please explain why the Soviet activities in Afghanistan SHOULD be condemned? You clearly think that it should be. Perhaps you can provide a different opinion, with a few sources. I, for one, would be interested in hearing a different point of view (I actually mean that – not being patronising there…).


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Oh, and if I may ask, just what do you think WE are trying to do in Afghanistan, now?


Hmmm… I thought you guys went in there trying to find bin Laden, after 9/11. That’s what YOU suggested here…


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
…fired at Bin Laden's camps… It's only in your head that the supposed "military action" the U.S. was planning would have been anything More than that.


How’s that working out for you?

Or are you changing your story now? Are you guys in there to bring freedom and democracy and a western way of thinking? According to you that would only be ‘in my head’…


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You're the one who believes the gov't can never make any mistake, and that if it happens in politics, it had to have been planned, not me.


Really? Where have I ever said a government can’t make a mistake? We’re talking about Afghanistan in this thread. Are you saying that the US invasion of Afghanistan is a mistake?


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Jesus, flipping Christ. You're defending HITLER, now?!?. You just lost all credibility.


Nice try. At no point in my life have I EVER defended Hitler. I’m just wondering on what you’re basing your claim that Hitler was WAY worse than Stalin. It seems that once you realise you’ve got nothing to base that on, you just try and spin a story that I’m a Nazi-supporter.

It’s not going to work here. Everyone can see straight through that. The only credibility at risk for using THAT type of rebuttal is yours. All I’m asking is why YOU CLAIM that Hitler was way worse than Stalin. I merely pointed out that it couldn’t be based on body count.

I believe it’s for the same reason I outlined above. It makes people feel better that we were fighting on the same side to make simple claims like ‘Hitler was way worse’. But it’s one thing to SAY that, and another thing to BACK IT UP.

Remember these best friends?



They're all smiling. I guess Hitler MUST have been worse, right? Again - what do YOU base that claim on?


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I'm here to show how these 9/11 conspiracy stories are nothing but rubbish, and you haven't shown anythign that refutes the point.


Actually I have. I pointed out that access to a possible $16 trillion dollars worth of oil (a resource CRUCIAL to an operating society, and in LIMITED supply, which if not secured will go to those OTHER bad guys, Russia and China), plus 236 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, is an awfully big carrot to dangle. And I’ve pointed out that even though Northwoods never got past the planning stage, it PROVES that it is far from incomprehensible for people in power to consider such strategies.

You just seem to want to close your eyes and say ‘that’s rubbish’.

Rewey


[edit on 11-11-2009 by Rewey]




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join