andyx1205
15th March 2012, 22:26
I made this post on another forum here (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news-politics/hillary-clinton-speaks-of-silk-road-through-afghanistan-t28935.html) but I'd like to hear your guys thoughts.
I will warn you this is very long since I copy-pasted from my posts I made in that thread.
In 2007, US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher summarized the goal of the War in Afghanistan:
"one of our goals (http://kabul.usembassy.gov/boucher_102607.html) in trying to work in Afghanistan is to stabilize Afghanistan, so it can become a conduit and a hub between South and Central Asia so that energy can flow to the south. Ideas and goods can flow to the north. People can move back and forth. Intellectual influences can move back and forth. And so that the countries of Central Asia are no longer bottled up between two enormous powers of China and Russia, but rather they have outlets to the south as well as to the north and the east and the west."
This might come to a shock for many, but we are not fighting in Afghanistan in order to kill Al Qaeda (that is not our primary objective, providing for a stable Afghanistan is in our interests for the Trans-Afghanistan (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline) pipeline discussed below), and our new enemies the Taliban. Historically Afghanistan is a very important geostrategic area.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#Possible_long-term_U.S._role_and_military_presence
Along with its proximity to the vast Central Asian and Caspian Sea energy sources and being in the midst of the regional powers of India, China, and Russia, Afghanistan also holds strategic significance given its border with Iran.
There are three provided links for important articles. The first, from two years ago, addresses the reasons we are fighting in Afghanistan (and in fact attempts to justify the war for our national economic interests). The second and third discuss "Secretary Hillary Clinton's (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/09/173807.htm) [articulation of] the U.S. government's vision of a "New Silk Road" running through Afghanistan." The third believes we should also include Iran in this new Eurasia economic vision by working with it instead of isolating it.
Please read all of the three articles before posting. Whether or not this "Silk Road" is a good thing is a completely different discussion, it may very well be a good thing for the region economically. What I am disgusted at is that the so called war on terrorism is used as a pretext to justify the War in Afghanistan. Countless hours of media air-time, countless books, countless discussions and debates on the war on terrorism and terrorism itself or the Taliban's brutality (a group that is a merger of Pashtun Nationalism and nasty shariah law) are wasted and used as a form of propaganda. Of course, they cannot simply tell us that the War in Afghanistan, rather, that our soldiers are fighting and bleeding in one of the world's most dangerous areas, and even dying, not because of security threats to our countries but rather for achieving national economic interests (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline) and maintaining a foothold in a geostrategic area on the borders of Central Asia (possibly to have control over this area and curb future Russian and Chinese influence and expansion in this area, look at a map and use common sense). As always, as was the case in the Cold War (imperialism under pretext of fighting communism), the War on Terrorism provides a pretext for doing the same thing. Like I said, the goals of imperialism in Afghanistan may very well have good economic benefits for that region but the simple fact that we are fed lies and propaganda instead of being told the truth is disgusting. Of course, it will be hard to sell a war if they tell us that our soldiers are dying there not with the goal of fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban but rather for other interests.
Anyways, enjoy the read. I'm sure you can look up other articles as well, from the NY Times or the Guardian, google is good for that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/10/afghan-war-france-germany-europe?commentpage=3#start-of-comments
The real stakes in the Afghan war
This is not about just about pre-empting future terrorist attacks on European capitals by stopping the Taliban from retaking the country. At stake in Afghanistan is the survival of the transatlantic alliance, Europe's energy security and independence, and whether the deepening ties between Europe – especially Germany – and Russia, will eventually lead to the western integration of Russia, or instead, to it gaining a stranglehold over European energy security. In Afghanistan all three issues are interlinked. This fact remains largely ignored.
Let me explain: Afghanistan is a crucial energy transit corridor in central Asia, potentially connecting the energy-rich central Asian republics with the Arabian Sea and/or the Indian Ocean. Stabilising Afghanistan – not just temporarily to justify withdrawal, but for good – is crucial for the anticipated Trans-Afghanistan pipeline from Turkmenistan to India (known as Tapi) to be built and its security to be guaranteed.
The construction of Tapi is essential for Europe to diversify its energy supplies and reduce its dependence on oil and gas imports from the Gulf and Russia. Failure in Afghanistan, and by extension in Pakistan, would mean abandoning the construction of Tapi and in turn, pave the way for Russia to reassert its former hegemony in the region.
The Silk Road Through Afghanistan
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136713/thomas-r-nides/the-silk-road-through-afghanistan
The United States and its international partners have begun to transfer responsibility for Afghanistan's security to the Afghan National Security Forces, as was agreed last November in Lisbon. As Afghan President Hamid Karzai announced on November 26, nearly half of the population will be under Afghan security responsibility in the near future, and by the end of 2014, security throughout the whole of the country will be the responsibility of the Afghans themselves.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/23/all_silk_roads_lead_to_tehran?page=0,0&showcomments=yes
All Silk Roads Lead to Tehran
Sanctions aren't the answer. If Washington is serious about building a new economic and security architecture across South and Central Asia, it can’t avoid working with Iran.
Speaking last September on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Secretary Hillary Clinton articulated the U.S. government's vision of a "New Silk Road" running through Afghanistan. In a throwback to the circuit that once connected India and China with Turkey and Egypt, she argued in favor of a network of road, rail, and energy links that would traverse Central Asia and enable Turkmen gas to fuel the subcontinent's economic growth, cotton from Tajikistan to fill India's textile mills, and Afghan produce to reach markets across Asia.
By enhancing economic integration, the strategy aims to boost local economies and stabilize the region. There are certainly doubts about the plan's feasibility. But at least, after years of endlessly repeating the myth that Afghanistan is the "graveyard of empires," this new Silk Road recognizes that, from the times of the ancient Persians to Alexander the Great, and through the Mongols, Mughals, and Sikhs, Afghanistan was at the center of global exchange. (continue (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/23/all_silk_roads_lead_to_tehran?page=0,0&showcomments=yes))
Obviously Hillary Clinton will not come out and say that the "Silk Road" was the goal from the very beginning, similar to how Dick Cheney will obviously not come out and admit that the WMDs was a fabrication in Iraq, or that LBJ will come out and say that he knew the story behind the Gulf of Tonkin incident was skeptical. It's common sense, not a conspiracy.
Brzezinski's book, "The Grand Chessboard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard)," which looks at geostrategy in Central Asia, who btw was the former U.S. National Security Advisor and America's proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviets was pretty much Brzezinski's war (I'm sure you've heard of Operation Cyclone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone)).
Laying the Groundwork for Afghanistan's New Silk Road
How Washington and Kabul Can Turn a Vision Into a Plan
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136714/andrew-c-kuchins/laying-the-groundwork-for-afghanistans-new-silk-road#
Over the past year, the United States, as part of its broader transition strategy in Afghanistan, has embraced the promotion of regional trade and transportation as a way of fostering sustainable economic growth in the country. More broadly, this strategy would also lead to greater economic and political interdependence between Afghanistan and its neighbors. As its proponents -- myself included -- see it, Afghanistan would serve as a crossroads for rapidly developing overland trade in Eurasia, a situation that would bring along with it a measure of development and stability.
Such infrastructure would allow Afghanistan's agricultural products and mineral wealth to reach regional and global markets. Indeed, Afghanistan served this role from the ancient Silk Road period up until about 500 years ago, when sea trade and other factors diminished overland trade. But today the burgeoning emerging Eurasian economies, including China, India, Russia, and Turkey, are increasing their demand for such trade routes. It is now essential for Afghanistan's economic development, as well as its political and military security, that this role be renewed in a New Silk Road.
This vision, which has its roots in Afghanistan's own development strategies going back to 2002, was articulated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in July. It was reaffirmed by the UN General Assembly in September and again by the participants in last month's Istanbul Conference, who issued a statement that endorsed "Afghanistan's role as the land bridge in the 'Heart of Asia' connecting South Asia, Central Asia, Eurasia, and the Middle East."
(continue (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136714/andrew-c-kuchins/laying-the-groundwork-for-afghanistans-new-silk-road#))[/quote]
Lets get to some good evidence.
Dec 29, 1997. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/analysis/43219.stm
American oil companies, together with Pakistan, have shown strong interest in an alternative route that would carry Turkmen gas, via Afghanistan, to the Pakistani port of Karachi. Despite the continuing civil war in Afghanistan, there's been fierce competition between two rival firms -- Bridas of Argentina, and the US-Saudi consortium UNOCAL -- to construct the pipeline. Both companies have been negotiating hard with the Taleban movement, which controls two thirds of Afghanistan, to secure the contract.
November 3, 1998. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/207183.stm
An American-funded training project in Afghanistan has closed down as a result of the US cruise missile attack on the country in August. The programme was funded by the American oil company, Unocal, which was once hoping to be involved in building a gas pipeline across the country from Turkmenistan to Pakistan.
September 11, 2001.
Sept 18, 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
The wider objective was to oust the Taleban
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. ...
Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.
He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks.
And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.
May 30, 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2017044.stm
The leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan have agreed to construct a $2bn pipeline to bring gas from Central Asia to the sub-continent.
The project was abandoned in 1998 when a consortium led by US energy company Unocal withdrew from the project over fears of being seen to support Afghanistan's then Taliban government. ... There is also a question mark over stability in Afghanistan, but interim Afghan leader Hamid Karzai said peace was prevailing all over the country. ... The pipeline could eventually supply gas to India.
*****************
The following is the most important link in this article, dated from 1998. It's somewhat lengthy but please click the link and read the whole thing, there's a lot of comical stuff in there as well!
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee Hearings
Feb 12, 1998
"The U.S. Government's position is that we support multiple pipelines...
The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our
support under that policy. I would caution that while we do support the
project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any
governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries,
Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do
support the project."
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.htm#17
"The only other possible route [for the desired oil pipeline] is across,
Afghanistan which has of course its own unique challenges."
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.htm#33
"CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized
Afghanistan Government is in place."
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.htm#33
The new Great Game: The 'war on terror' is being used as an excuse to further US energy interests in the Caspian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/oct/20/oil
Military planners don't just sit around doing nothing, they make preparations for possible conflicts, they devise strategies for the future. American strategist analysists understood after World War 2 that whoever controlled the Middle East, the most resource-rich and hence strategic area in the world, would control the world, and ever since American foreign policy in the Middle East has been about safeguarding hegemony over that area. 9/11 (a massacre committed by terrorists, not a "conspiracy" as some wackos believe) allowed (read Naomi Klein's shock doctrine) pretexts to carry out previously devised plans, specifically to gain a foothold in Afghanistan and also to topple Saddam in Iraq. Well, state department analyists also know the importance of Afghanistan, the pipeline, and control over that area, specifically to link up Central and South Asia in order to prevent future Chinese and Russian influence in that area. It's part of a grander plan strategy.
Difficulty building the pipeline due to ongoing civil war in Afghanistan. In 1998, Osama Bin Laden was involved in the US Embassy Bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings) and Mullah Omar, leader of Taliban, was sympathetic to and gave moral/ideological support to Al Qaeda. This embarrassed UNOCAL (who in 2005 merged with Chevron) who seen to be working with the Taliban, being forced to withdraw its plans for the pipeline and exiting Afghanistan and Pakistan (it had offices there).
Military responses against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan include this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/207183.stm) and this. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/241477.stm) As you can see, we have been engaging militarily in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda long before September 11, 2011.
March 15, 2001.
India joins anti-Taliban coalition (http://web.archive.org/web/20080226012915/http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml)
India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime...Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support.
Military actions against Al Qaeda and the Taliban were already happening long before 9/11.
U.S. planned for attack on Al-Qaeda (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/)
President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.
Take that for what you will.
I already noted the comments of Pakistan's Foreign Minister that America had drawn out plans to go to war (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm) with the Taliban if it didn't hand over Bin Laden (before 9/11), and that if a war happened..it would happen in October. He also noted, from his personal opinion, that he thought even if Bin Laden was turned over, America would still go to war with the Taliban.
3) Here is the important event, on September 11, 2001, and we all know what happened on that day.
There were a lot of reports on, not a possible, but a planned, eventual Al Qaeda attack on the U.S., and the hush hush after 9/11 raised skepticism (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2025534.stm) of the official reports, yet the attack still took place. I'll assume that 9/11 was allowed to happen due to incompetence. There were warnings that some attack may occur, just as how there were feelings that the Japanese may eventually attack before Pearl Harbour, but nonetheless, both attacks still happened. Unfortunately no one has been prosecuted for their incompetence in allowing 9/11 to happen but lets put that on the side, 9/11 happened, it's a fact. What are the events after?
4) September 11, 2001 (CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/11/trade.centre.reaction/))
In Islamabad, Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, said: "We want to tell the American children that Afghanistan feels your pain and we hope that the courts find justice."
In Kabul, Afghanistan, Wakeel Ahmed Mutawakel, the foreign minister of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban government, told the Arab television network Al Jazeera, "We denounce this terrorist attack, whoever is behind it."
This makes sense, the Taliban were unaware of the plans for 9/11.
September 12, 2001, BBC (Bin Laden extradition raised (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1539468.stm))
A leading spokesman for Afghanistan's ruling Taleban militia has said it would consider extraditing terror suspect Osama Bin Laden based on US evidence.
US officials have described the Saudi-born dissident as their chief suspect in off-the record briefings, saying they have intercepted messages between his people talking about the attacks.
The Taleban ambassador to neighbouring Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, said, when asked about Mr Bin Laden's possible extradition, that the first step would be to discuss any US evidence.
It would be "premature" to talk about extraditing the Saudi dissident.
"If any evidence is presented to us, we will study it," he told reporters.
"About his handover, we can talk about that in the second phase," Mr Zaeef said.
BBC World Affairs editor John Simpson says the ruling militia has consistently maintained that allowing Mr Bin Laden to remain in the country was a matter of honour.
A reversal could mean that Afghanistan's leaders are trying to rescue themselves from an all out, massive attack by American forces.
Mr Bin Laden has denied involvement in the attacks on the United States, but says he fully supports such "daring acts". ["I support the attacks because they constitute a reaction of the oppressed people against the atrocities of the cruel" - Osama Bin Laden]
September 16, 2001 BBC (America widens 'crusade' on terror (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1547561.stm))
"I want to remind the American people that the prime suspect's [Osama Bin Laden] organisation is in a lot of countries," Mr Bush told reporters on the White House lawn.
Pakistan is sending a delegation to Afghanistan to persuade the Taleban to hand over Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi-born dissident who has been their guest since 1996.
Mr Bin Laden issues his first direct denial of involvement in the attacks.
Mr Bin Laden issued a statement on Sunday denying any involvement in the attacks.
"The US is pointing the finger at me but I categorically state that I have not done this," he was quoted as saying by the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press news agency.
Bin Laden is a prime suspect. In 1998 Bin Laden declared war on the West. Yet 5 days after the attacks he denies his involvement in 9/11. From this date, one would hold the belief that Bin Laden is a suspect of a crime and he denies involvement in the crime (for what reasons we do not know, maybe he wasn't involved and later boasted that he was involved to increase jihadists for his agenda, maybe he was scared that America would actually come in and take him, maybe he was trying to buy time, who knows). What I find odd is he denied his involvement yet only until 2004 did he claim to be responsible for 9/11, full translated transcript of the video found here. (http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html) We will never know if Osama Bin Laden was involved or not, maybe he was telling the truth in 2001 and simply accepted responsibility in 2004 for propaganda and recruitment purposes. Maybe he was lying in 2001 and finally claimed responsibility in 2004. Who knows. Seems more like a "boasting" than a confession, but who knows why he lied in September 2001.
September 16, 2001 (US prepares for war (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1547463.stm))
Certain US arms manufacturers have reportedly been alerted so that they can step up production of key weapons systems should the need arise.
But it is unlikely that there is any campaign plan yet. The nature of the enemy is still to be fully defined.
The US may well take time to lay out its evidence about who is responsible for these attacks to bolster the international coalition that it is building to back military action.
As noted in previous post:
Sept 11
(the event)
Sept 12
Bin Laden denies involvement. Taliban offers to extradite him if given evidence.
Sept 16
Bin Laden says "The US is pointing the finger at me but I categorically state that I have not done this." (he would claim he did it in a 2004 video)
Bush says Bin Laden is the prime suspect.
"The US may well take time to lay out its evidence about who is responsible for these attacks to bolster the international coalition that it is building to back military action." BBC
Sept 20
Bush: "By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder....They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html
Sept 21
****very important****
This is concerning the religious scholars (or religious fundamentalists/mullahs) in Afghanistan.
"... The ulema of Afghanistan, in the face of their heavy responsibility for the solution of the problems, and in the light of Islam's holy religion, endorse the following decision and verdict: The ulema of Afghanistan voice their sadness over deaths in America and hope that America does not attack Afghanistan, exerts complete patience and accuracy and investigates the issue in its totality.
"The UN and the OIC deliberate over the utterances of America's president who has said that this war will be a crusade. This news has hurt the feelings of Muslims and has posed a major threat to the world.
"In order to avoid the current tumult and also similar suspicion in the future, the high council of the honourable ulema recommends to the Islamic Emirate to persuade Osama bin Laden to leave Afghanistan whenever possible ... and choose another place for himself.
"If, in the light of the above-mentioned decisions, America does not agree and attacks Afghanistan, then, in the light of the sacred Sharia [law] the following verdict is presented: All books of our religious persuasion say that if infidels attack the soil of a Muslim country, jihad [holy war] becomes an order for the Muslims of that country...
"If infidels invade an Islamic country and that country does not have the ability to defend itself, jihad becomes an obligation on all Muslims.
"If infidels attack the soil of Muslims they can, in time of need, ask Islamic and non-Islamic governments for help...
"If at the time of America's attack, any Muslim, whether an Afghan or non-Afghan, cooperates with infidels, becomes an accomplice or a spy, that person is also punishable with death like the foreign invaders."
Read it here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/21/afghanistan.september115?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487)
Sept 27
The Taliban (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/27/afghanistan.terrorism15?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487) today confirmed that the prime suspect in the terror attacks on New York and Washington, Osama bin Laden, is still in Afghanistan.
The Taliban's information minister, Qudrutullah Jamal, said today that a messenger had been dispatched to deliver an edict asking Bin Laden to leave the country, and the Taliban believed he had received the message.
Sept 28
Taliban order Bin Laden to leave (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/28/afghanistan.terrorism1?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487)
Ruling clerics deliver edict to Afghan hideout
The Taliban's information minister, Qudrutullah Jamal, said: "It's not as if we can pick up the phone and talk to Osama, or fax a message to him. The message had to be sent through a messenger who probably took some time to find him.
Munawar Ahsan, a senior leader of Mr Ahmed's Jamaat-i-Islami party, said: "They want to ensure the safety of the people of Afghanistan. It is not about telling them to meet the demands of the Americans, but to act for the security of the Afghan people."
He said the clerics would not tell Mullah Omar to give up Osama bin Laden. Instead, the clerics are expected to suggest that the Taliban meet the Americans. But Washington has ruled out negotiations with the hardline regime.
Oct 5
Taliban 'will try Bin Laden if US provides evidence (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/05/afghanistan.terrorism?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487)'
Afghanistan's ruling Taliban are prepared to put Osama bin Laden on trial in an Afghan court, but only if the US provides hard evidence against him, the party announced today.
Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeff, the Afghan ambassador to Pakistan, said: "We are prepared to try him, if America provides solid evidence of Osama bin Laden's involvement in attacks in New York and Washington."
Asked whether the Taliban would allow a trial of Bin Laden in another country, he said: "We are willing to talk about that, but the first is that we must be given the evidence."
The Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) quoted Mullah Zaeff as saying: "If America is not satisfied with our trial of Osama, we are also ready to find another Islamic way of trying him."
But asked whether the Taliban were ready to hand over Bin Laden, he said: "This is a later thing, we cannot take any step that hurts our Islamic or Afghan dignity."
The US has said it will not hand over evidence to the Taliban, but insists it has enough put him on trial. (then why not save a lot of lives and hand the evidence over?) Nearly all of the US' allies say this evidence has convinced them of Bin Laden's involvement in last month's attacks.
AIP said Mullah Zaeef had again offered talks to the United States saying: "War is nothing but pain and death, blood does not wash blood, negotiations are a good path and we can discuss all issues including Osama."
Washington has said there is nothing to discuss.
Oct 7
Airstrikes on Afghanistan begin (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/07/afghanistan.terrorism7?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487)
Oct 14
Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over
Taliban demand evidence of Bin Laden's guilt (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5)
* Second week of airstrikes starts
* Taliban urges US to halt bombing
President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.
"There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty" [Bush]
Taliban 'ready to discuss' Bin Laden handover if bombing halts
"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country","If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate," he said. "Then we could discuss which third country."
Oct 17
New offer on Bin Laden
Minister makes secret trip to offer trial in third country
Open your eyes. Now read.
A senior Taliban minister (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11) has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night.
For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said.
But US officials appear to have dismissed the proposal and are instead hoping to engineer a split within the Taliban leadership.
The offer was brought by Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban foreign minister and a man who is often regarded as a more moderate figure in the regime.
He met officials from the CIA and Pakistan's ISI intelligence directorate in Islamabad on Monday. US officials pressed the minister for a sweeping change in the regime. "They are trying to persuade him to get the moderate elements together," another source said.
*****I thought we wanted Bin Laden, not regime change???
The Taliban foreign minister had asked for face-to-face talks with the US secretary of state but no direct meeting was held.
...until now the Taliban regime has consistently said it has not seen any convincing evidence to implicate the Saudi dissident in any crime.
"Now they have agreed to hand him over to a third country without the evidence being presented in advance," the source close to the military said.
Pakistan was administering these negotiations and developments because it wants the Taliban to stay in power, in fear of India-backed Northern Alliance gaining control.
A lot of people don't know these facts. I thought I'd post them here. Make up your own mind. If you disagree, then simply posting that you disagree is not sufficient, you need to do more than that.
To sum it up:
Taliban wouldn't hand over Bin Laden unless evidence was offered. Taliban said they could work toward developments to extradite him if the bombing stopped, this offer was rejected. Moderates in Taliban, with backing of Pakistan that wants Taliban to stay in power instead of the India-backed NA coming to power, worked towards developments. Now, segments of the Taliban "offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing."
Here's an interesting article.
Bush team 'agreed plan to attack the Taliban the day before September 11'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/24/september11.usa2?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
The day before the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, according to a report by a bipartisan commission of inquiry.
The report pointed out that agreement on the plan, which involved a steady escalation of pressure over three years, had been repeatedly put off by the Clinton and Bush administrations, despite the repeated failure of attempts to use diplomatic and economic pressure.
The revelation emerged at the beginning of the commission's hearings this week on the country's failure to prevent the attacks, in which the top officials from both administrations came under scrutiny.
[continue]
This not only undermines the argument of 9/11 truthers/conspiracy theorists who believe 9/11 was an inside job, since plans to "oust the Taliban regime" were on the table before 9/11, it gives more evidence to the fact that Afghanistan was on the table before 9/11.
From the same article:
At a meeting of the Bush administration's top national security officials on September 10, a three-phase strategy was agreed.
The Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over Bin Laden. Failing that, covert military aid would be channelled to anti-Taliban groups. If both those options failed, "the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action."
However, the three-step process would have taken up to three years, and did not represent an immediate attack plan.
The next day, hijacked planes destroyed the World Trade Centre and hit the Pentagon, triggering the launch of an anti-Taliban offensive in October and the Taliban's fall a month later.
9/11 simply sped up the process. Hence, while it is technically true that we invaded Afghanistan because of 9/11, it is not true that we planned to invade Afghanistan because of 9/11.
Cheers, I'd appreciate your comments.
To simplify everything from above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqX4Jg3DrzY
I will warn you this is very long since I copy-pasted from my posts I made in that thread.
In 2007, US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher summarized the goal of the War in Afghanistan:
"one of our goals (http://kabul.usembassy.gov/boucher_102607.html) in trying to work in Afghanistan is to stabilize Afghanistan, so it can become a conduit and a hub between South and Central Asia so that energy can flow to the south. Ideas and goods can flow to the north. People can move back and forth. Intellectual influences can move back and forth. And so that the countries of Central Asia are no longer bottled up between two enormous powers of China and Russia, but rather they have outlets to the south as well as to the north and the east and the west."
This might come to a shock for many, but we are not fighting in Afghanistan in order to kill Al Qaeda (that is not our primary objective, providing for a stable Afghanistan is in our interests for the Trans-Afghanistan (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline) pipeline discussed below), and our new enemies the Taliban. Historically Afghanistan is a very important geostrategic area.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#Possible_long-term_U.S._role_and_military_presence
Along with its proximity to the vast Central Asian and Caspian Sea energy sources and being in the midst of the regional powers of India, China, and Russia, Afghanistan also holds strategic significance given its border with Iran.
There are three provided links for important articles. The first, from two years ago, addresses the reasons we are fighting in Afghanistan (and in fact attempts to justify the war for our national economic interests). The second and third discuss "Secretary Hillary Clinton's (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/09/173807.htm) [articulation of] the U.S. government's vision of a "New Silk Road" running through Afghanistan." The third believes we should also include Iran in this new Eurasia economic vision by working with it instead of isolating it.
Please read all of the three articles before posting. Whether or not this "Silk Road" is a good thing is a completely different discussion, it may very well be a good thing for the region economically. What I am disgusted at is that the so called war on terrorism is used as a pretext to justify the War in Afghanistan. Countless hours of media air-time, countless books, countless discussions and debates on the war on terrorism and terrorism itself or the Taliban's brutality (a group that is a merger of Pashtun Nationalism and nasty shariah law) are wasted and used as a form of propaganda. Of course, they cannot simply tell us that the War in Afghanistan, rather, that our soldiers are fighting and bleeding in one of the world's most dangerous areas, and even dying, not because of security threats to our countries but rather for achieving national economic interests (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline) and maintaining a foothold in a geostrategic area on the borders of Central Asia (possibly to have control over this area and curb future Russian and Chinese influence and expansion in this area, look at a map and use common sense). As always, as was the case in the Cold War (imperialism under pretext of fighting communism), the War on Terrorism provides a pretext for doing the same thing. Like I said, the goals of imperialism in Afghanistan may very well have good economic benefits for that region but the simple fact that we are fed lies and propaganda instead of being told the truth is disgusting. Of course, it will be hard to sell a war if they tell us that our soldiers are dying there not with the goal of fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban but rather for other interests.
Anyways, enjoy the read. I'm sure you can look up other articles as well, from the NY Times or the Guardian, google is good for that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/10/afghan-war-france-germany-europe?commentpage=3#start-of-comments
The real stakes in the Afghan war
This is not about just about pre-empting future terrorist attacks on European capitals by stopping the Taliban from retaking the country. At stake in Afghanistan is the survival of the transatlantic alliance, Europe's energy security and independence, and whether the deepening ties between Europe – especially Germany – and Russia, will eventually lead to the western integration of Russia, or instead, to it gaining a stranglehold over European energy security. In Afghanistan all three issues are interlinked. This fact remains largely ignored.
Let me explain: Afghanistan is a crucial energy transit corridor in central Asia, potentially connecting the energy-rich central Asian republics with the Arabian Sea and/or the Indian Ocean. Stabilising Afghanistan – not just temporarily to justify withdrawal, but for good – is crucial for the anticipated Trans-Afghanistan pipeline from Turkmenistan to India (known as Tapi) to be built and its security to be guaranteed.
The construction of Tapi is essential for Europe to diversify its energy supplies and reduce its dependence on oil and gas imports from the Gulf and Russia. Failure in Afghanistan, and by extension in Pakistan, would mean abandoning the construction of Tapi and in turn, pave the way for Russia to reassert its former hegemony in the region.
The Silk Road Through Afghanistan
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136713/thomas-r-nides/the-silk-road-through-afghanistan
The United States and its international partners have begun to transfer responsibility for Afghanistan's security to the Afghan National Security Forces, as was agreed last November in Lisbon. As Afghan President Hamid Karzai announced on November 26, nearly half of the population will be under Afghan security responsibility in the near future, and by the end of 2014, security throughout the whole of the country will be the responsibility of the Afghans themselves.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/23/all_silk_roads_lead_to_tehran?page=0,0&showcomments=yes
All Silk Roads Lead to Tehran
Sanctions aren't the answer. If Washington is serious about building a new economic and security architecture across South and Central Asia, it can’t avoid working with Iran.
Speaking last September on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Secretary Hillary Clinton articulated the U.S. government's vision of a "New Silk Road" running through Afghanistan. In a throwback to the circuit that once connected India and China with Turkey and Egypt, she argued in favor of a network of road, rail, and energy links that would traverse Central Asia and enable Turkmen gas to fuel the subcontinent's economic growth, cotton from Tajikistan to fill India's textile mills, and Afghan produce to reach markets across Asia.
By enhancing economic integration, the strategy aims to boost local economies and stabilize the region. There are certainly doubts about the plan's feasibility. But at least, after years of endlessly repeating the myth that Afghanistan is the "graveyard of empires," this new Silk Road recognizes that, from the times of the ancient Persians to Alexander the Great, and through the Mongols, Mughals, and Sikhs, Afghanistan was at the center of global exchange. (continue (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/23/all_silk_roads_lead_to_tehran?page=0,0&showcomments=yes))
Obviously Hillary Clinton will not come out and say that the "Silk Road" was the goal from the very beginning, similar to how Dick Cheney will obviously not come out and admit that the WMDs was a fabrication in Iraq, or that LBJ will come out and say that he knew the story behind the Gulf of Tonkin incident was skeptical. It's common sense, not a conspiracy.
Brzezinski's book, "The Grand Chessboard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard)," which looks at geostrategy in Central Asia, who btw was the former U.S. National Security Advisor and America's proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviets was pretty much Brzezinski's war (I'm sure you've heard of Operation Cyclone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone)).
Laying the Groundwork for Afghanistan's New Silk Road
How Washington and Kabul Can Turn a Vision Into a Plan
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136714/andrew-c-kuchins/laying-the-groundwork-for-afghanistans-new-silk-road#
Over the past year, the United States, as part of its broader transition strategy in Afghanistan, has embraced the promotion of regional trade and transportation as a way of fostering sustainable economic growth in the country. More broadly, this strategy would also lead to greater economic and political interdependence between Afghanistan and its neighbors. As its proponents -- myself included -- see it, Afghanistan would serve as a crossroads for rapidly developing overland trade in Eurasia, a situation that would bring along with it a measure of development and stability.
Such infrastructure would allow Afghanistan's agricultural products and mineral wealth to reach regional and global markets. Indeed, Afghanistan served this role from the ancient Silk Road period up until about 500 years ago, when sea trade and other factors diminished overland trade. But today the burgeoning emerging Eurasian economies, including China, India, Russia, and Turkey, are increasing their demand for such trade routes. It is now essential for Afghanistan's economic development, as well as its political and military security, that this role be renewed in a New Silk Road.
This vision, which has its roots in Afghanistan's own development strategies going back to 2002, was articulated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in July. It was reaffirmed by the UN General Assembly in September and again by the participants in last month's Istanbul Conference, who issued a statement that endorsed "Afghanistan's role as the land bridge in the 'Heart of Asia' connecting South Asia, Central Asia, Eurasia, and the Middle East."
(continue (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136714/andrew-c-kuchins/laying-the-groundwork-for-afghanistans-new-silk-road#))[/quote]
Lets get to some good evidence.
Dec 29, 1997. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/analysis/43219.stm
American oil companies, together with Pakistan, have shown strong interest in an alternative route that would carry Turkmen gas, via Afghanistan, to the Pakistani port of Karachi. Despite the continuing civil war in Afghanistan, there's been fierce competition between two rival firms -- Bridas of Argentina, and the US-Saudi consortium UNOCAL -- to construct the pipeline. Both companies have been negotiating hard with the Taleban movement, which controls two thirds of Afghanistan, to secure the contract.
November 3, 1998. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/207183.stm
An American-funded training project in Afghanistan has closed down as a result of the US cruise missile attack on the country in August. The programme was funded by the American oil company, Unocal, which was once hoping to be involved in building a gas pipeline across the country from Turkmenistan to Pakistan.
September 11, 2001.
Sept 18, 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
The wider objective was to oust the Taleban
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. ...
Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.
He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks.
And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.
May 30, 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2017044.stm
The leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan have agreed to construct a $2bn pipeline to bring gas from Central Asia to the sub-continent.
The project was abandoned in 1998 when a consortium led by US energy company Unocal withdrew from the project over fears of being seen to support Afghanistan's then Taliban government. ... There is also a question mark over stability in Afghanistan, but interim Afghan leader Hamid Karzai said peace was prevailing all over the country. ... The pipeline could eventually supply gas to India.
*****************
The following is the most important link in this article, dated from 1998. It's somewhat lengthy but please click the link and read the whole thing, there's a lot of comical stuff in there as well!
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee Hearings
Feb 12, 1998
"The U.S. Government's position is that we support multiple pipelines...
The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our
support under that policy. I would caution that while we do support the
project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any
governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries,
Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do
support the project."
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.htm#17
"The only other possible route [for the desired oil pipeline] is across,
Afghanistan which has of course its own unique challenges."
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.htm#33
"CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized
Afghanistan Government is in place."
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.htm#33
The new Great Game: The 'war on terror' is being used as an excuse to further US energy interests in the Caspian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/oct/20/oil
Military planners don't just sit around doing nothing, they make preparations for possible conflicts, they devise strategies for the future. American strategist analysists understood after World War 2 that whoever controlled the Middle East, the most resource-rich and hence strategic area in the world, would control the world, and ever since American foreign policy in the Middle East has been about safeguarding hegemony over that area. 9/11 (a massacre committed by terrorists, not a "conspiracy" as some wackos believe) allowed (read Naomi Klein's shock doctrine) pretexts to carry out previously devised plans, specifically to gain a foothold in Afghanistan and also to topple Saddam in Iraq. Well, state department analyists also know the importance of Afghanistan, the pipeline, and control over that area, specifically to link up Central and South Asia in order to prevent future Chinese and Russian influence in that area. It's part of a grander plan strategy.
Difficulty building the pipeline due to ongoing civil war in Afghanistan. In 1998, Osama Bin Laden was involved in the US Embassy Bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings) and Mullah Omar, leader of Taliban, was sympathetic to and gave moral/ideological support to Al Qaeda. This embarrassed UNOCAL (who in 2005 merged with Chevron) who seen to be working with the Taliban, being forced to withdraw its plans for the pipeline and exiting Afghanistan and Pakistan (it had offices there).
Military responses against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan include this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/207183.stm) and this. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/241477.stm) As you can see, we have been engaging militarily in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda long before September 11, 2011.
March 15, 2001.
India joins anti-Taliban coalition (http://web.archive.org/web/20080226012915/http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml)
India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime...Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support.
Military actions against Al Qaeda and the Taliban were already happening long before 9/11.
U.S. planned for attack on Al-Qaeda (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/)
President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.
Take that for what you will.
I already noted the comments of Pakistan's Foreign Minister that America had drawn out plans to go to war (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm) with the Taliban if it didn't hand over Bin Laden (before 9/11), and that if a war happened..it would happen in October. He also noted, from his personal opinion, that he thought even if Bin Laden was turned over, America would still go to war with the Taliban.
3) Here is the important event, on September 11, 2001, and we all know what happened on that day.
There were a lot of reports on, not a possible, but a planned, eventual Al Qaeda attack on the U.S., and the hush hush after 9/11 raised skepticism (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2025534.stm) of the official reports, yet the attack still took place. I'll assume that 9/11 was allowed to happen due to incompetence. There were warnings that some attack may occur, just as how there were feelings that the Japanese may eventually attack before Pearl Harbour, but nonetheless, both attacks still happened. Unfortunately no one has been prosecuted for their incompetence in allowing 9/11 to happen but lets put that on the side, 9/11 happened, it's a fact. What are the events after?
4) September 11, 2001 (CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/11/trade.centre.reaction/))
In Islamabad, Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, said: "We want to tell the American children that Afghanistan feels your pain and we hope that the courts find justice."
In Kabul, Afghanistan, Wakeel Ahmed Mutawakel, the foreign minister of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban government, told the Arab television network Al Jazeera, "We denounce this terrorist attack, whoever is behind it."
This makes sense, the Taliban were unaware of the plans for 9/11.
September 12, 2001, BBC (Bin Laden extradition raised (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1539468.stm))
A leading spokesman for Afghanistan's ruling Taleban militia has said it would consider extraditing terror suspect Osama Bin Laden based on US evidence.
US officials have described the Saudi-born dissident as their chief suspect in off-the record briefings, saying they have intercepted messages between his people talking about the attacks.
The Taleban ambassador to neighbouring Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, said, when asked about Mr Bin Laden's possible extradition, that the first step would be to discuss any US evidence.
It would be "premature" to talk about extraditing the Saudi dissident.
"If any evidence is presented to us, we will study it," he told reporters.
"About his handover, we can talk about that in the second phase," Mr Zaeef said.
BBC World Affairs editor John Simpson says the ruling militia has consistently maintained that allowing Mr Bin Laden to remain in the country was a matter of honour.
A reversal could mean that Afghanistan's leaders are trying to rescue themselves from an all out, massive attack by American forces.
Mr Bin Laden has denied involvement in the attacks on the United States, but says he fully supports such "daring acts". ["I support the attacks because they constitute a reaction of the oppressed people against the atrocities of the cruel" - Osama Bin Laden]
September 16, 2001 BBC (America widens 'crusade' on terror (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1547561.stm))
"I want to remind the American people that the prime suspect's [Osama Bin Laden] organisation is in a lot of countries," Mr Bush told reporters on the White House lawn.
Pakistan is sending a delegation to Afghanistan to persuade the Taleban to hand over Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi-born dissident who has been their guest since 1996.
Mr Bin Laden issues his first direct denial of involvement in the attacks.
Mr Bin Laden issued a statement on Sunday denying any involvement in the attacks.
"The US is pointing the finger at me but I categorically state that I have not done this," he was quoted as saying by the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press news agency.
Bin Laden is a prime suspect. In 1998 Bin Laden declared war on the West. Yet 5 days after the attacks he denies his involvement in 9/11. From this date, one would hold the belief that Bin Laden is a suspect of a crime and he denies involvement in the crime (for what reasons we do not know, maybe he wasn't involved and later boasted that he was involved to increase jihadists for his agenda, maybe he was scared that America would actually come in and take him, maybe he was trying to buy time, who knows). What I find odd is he denied his involvement yet only until 2004 did he claim to be responsible for 9/11, full translated transcript of the video found here. (http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html) We will never know if Osama Bin Laden was involved or not, maybe he was telling the truth in 2001 and simply accepted responsibility in 2004 for propaganda and recruitment purposes. Maybe he was lying in 2001 and finally claimed responsibility in 2004. Who knows. Seems more like a "boasting" than a confession, but who knows why he lied in September 2001.
September 16, 2001 (US prepares for war (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1547463.stm))
Certain US arms manufacturers have reportedly been alerted so that they can step up production of key weapons systems should the need arise.
But it is unlikely that there is any campaign plan yet. The nature of the enemy is still to be fully defined.
The US may well take time to lay out its evidence about who is responsible for these attacks to bolster the international coalition that it is building to back military action.
As noted in previous post:
Sept 11
(the event)
Sept 12
Bin Laden denies involvement. Taliban offers to extradite him if given evidence.
Sept 16
Bin Laden says "The US is pointing the finger at me but I categorically state that I have not done this." (he would claim he did it in a 2004 video)
Bush says Bin Laden is the prime suspect.
"The US may well take time to lay out its evidence about who is responsible for these attacks to bolster the international coalition that it is building to back military action." BBC
Sept 20
Bush: "By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder....They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html
Sept 21
****very important****
This is concerning the religious scholars (or religious fundamentalists/mullahs) in Afghanistan.
"... The ulema of Afghanistan, in the face of their heavy responsibility for the solution of the problems, and in the light of Islam's holy religion, endorse the following decision and verdict: The ulema of Afghanistan voice their sadness over deaths in America and hope that America does not attack Afghanistan, exerts complete patience and accuracy and investigates the issue in its totality.
"The UN and the OIC deliberate over the utterances of America's president who has said that this war will be a crusade. This news has hurt the feelings of Muslims and has posed a major threat to the world.
"In order to avoid the current tumult and also similar suspicion in the future, the high council of the honourable ulema recommends to the Islamic Emirate to persuade Osama bin Laden to leave Afghanistan whenever possible ... and choose another place for himself.
"If, in the light of the above-mentioned decisions, America does not agree and attacks Afghanistan, then, in the light of the sacred Sharia [law] the following verdict is presented: All books of our religious persuasion say that if infidels attack the soil of a Muslim country, jihad [holy war] becomes an order for the Muslims of that country...
"If infidels invade an Islamic country and that country does not have the ability to defend itself, jihad becomes an obligation on all Muslims.
"If infidels attack the soil of Muslims they can, in time of need, ask Islamic and non-Islamic governments for help...
"If at the time of America's attack, any Muslim, whether an Afghan or non-Afghan, cooperates with infidels, becomes an accomplice or a spy, that person is also punishable with death like the foreign invaders."
Read it here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/21/afghanistan.september115?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487)
Sept 27
The Taliban (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/27/afghanistan.terrorism15?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487) today confirmed that the prime suspect in the terror attacks on New York and Washington, Osama bin Laden, is still in Afghanistan.
The Taliban's information minister, Qudrutullah Jamal, said today that a messenger had been dispatched to deliver an edict asking Bin Laden to leave the country, and the Taliban believed he had received the message.
Sept 28
Taliban order Bin Laden to leave (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/28/afghanistan.terrorism1?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487)
Ruling clerics deliver edict to Afghan hideout
The Taliban's information minister, Qudrutullah Jamal, said: "It's not as if we can pick up the phone and talk to Osama, or fax a message to him. The message had to be sent through a messenger who probably took some time to find him.
Munawar Ahsan, a senior leader of Mr Ahmed's Jamaat-i-Islami party, said: "They want to ensure the safety of the people of Afghanistan. It is not about telling them to meet the demands of the Americans, but to act for the security of the Afghan people."
He said the clerics would not tell Mullah Omar to give up Osama bin Laden. Instead, the clerics are expected to suggest that the Taliban meet the Americans. But Washington has ruled out negotiations with the hardline regime.
Oct 5
Taliban 'will try Bin Laden if US provides evidence (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/05/afghanistan.terrorism?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487)'
Afghanistan's ruling Taliban are prepared to put Osama bin Laden on trial in an Afghan court, but only if the US provides hard evidence against him, the party announced today.
Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeff, the Afghan ambassador to Pakistan, said: "We are prepared to try him, if America provides solid evidence of Osama bin Laden's involvement in attacks in New York and Washington."
Asked whether the Taliban would allow a trial of Bin Laden in another country, he said: "We are willing to talk about that, but the first is that we must be given the evidence."
The Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) quoted Mullah Zaeff as saying: "If America is not satisfied with our trial of Osama, we are also ready to find another Islamic way of trying him."
But asked whether the Taliban were ready to hand over Bin Laden, he said: "This is a later thing, we cannot take any step that hurts our Islamic or Afghan dignity."
The US has said it will not hand over evidence to the Taliban, but insists it has enough put him on trial. (then why not save a lot of lives and hand the evidence over?) Nearly all of the US' allies say this evidence has convinced them of Bin Laden's involvement in last month's attacks.
AIP said Mullah Zaeef had again offered talks to the United States saying: "War is nothing but pain and death, blood does not wash blood, negotiations are a good path and we can discuss all issues including Osama."
Washington has said there is nothing to discuss.
Oct 7
Airstrikes on Afghanistan begin (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/07/afghanistan.terrorism7?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487)
Oct 14
Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over
Taliban demand evidence of Bin Laden's guilt (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5)
* Second week of airstrikes starts
* Taliban urges US to halt bombing
President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.
"There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty" [Bush]
Taliban 'ready to discuss' Bin Laden handover if bombing halts
"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country","If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate," he said. "Then we could discuss which third country."
Oct 17
New offer on Bin Laden
Minister makes secret trip to offer trial in third country
Open your eyes. Now read.
A senior Taliban minister (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11) has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night.
For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said.
But US officials appear to have dismissed the proposal and are instead hoping to engineer a split within the Taliban leadership.
The offer was brought by Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban foreign minister and a man who is often regarded as a more moderate figure in the regime.
He met officials from the CIA and Pakistan's ISI intelligence directorate in Islamabad on Monday. US officials pressed the minister for a sweeping change in the regime. "They are trying to persuade him to get the moderate elements together," another source said.
*****I thought we wanted Bin Laden, not regime change???
The Taliban foreign minister had asked for face-to-face talks with the US secretary of state but no direct meeting was held.
...until now the Taliban regime has consistently said it has not seen any convincing evidence to implicate the Saudi dissident in any crime.
"Now they have agreed to hand him over to a third country without the evidence being presented in advance," the source close to the military said.
Pakistan was administering these negotiations and developments because it wants the Taliban to stay in power, in fear of India-backed Northern Alliance gaining control.
A lot of people don't know these facts. I thought I'd post them here. Make up your own mind. If you disagree, then simply posting that you disagree is not sufficient, you need to do more than that.
To sum it up:
Taliban wouldn't hand over Bin Laden unless evidence was offered. Taliban said they could work toward developments to extradite him if the bombing stopped, this offer was rejected. Moderates in Taliban, with backing of Pakistan that wants Taliban to stay in power instead of the India-backed NA coming to power, worked towards developments. Now, segments of the Taliban "offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing."
Here's an interesting article.
Bush team 'agreed plan to attack the Taliban the day before September 11'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/24/september11.usa2?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
The day before the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, according to a report by a bipartisan commission of inquiry.
The report pointed out that agreement on the plan, which involved a steady escalation of pressure over three years, had been repeatedly put off by the Clinton and Bush administrations, despite the repeated failure of attempts to use diplomatic and economic pressure.
The revelation emerged at the beginning of the commission's hearings this week on the country's failure to prevent the attacks, in which the top officials from both administrations came under scrutiny.
[continue]
This not only undermines the argument of 9/11 truthers/conspiracy theorists who believe 9/11 was an inside job, since plans to "oust the Taliban regime" were on the table before 9/11, it gives more evidence to the fact that Afghanistan was on the table before 9/11.
From the same article:
At a meeting of the Bush administration's top national security officials on September 10, a three-phase strategy was agreed.
The Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over Bin Laden. Failing that, covert military aid would be channelled to anti-Taliban groups. If both those options failed, "the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action."
However, the three-step process would have taken up to three years, and did not represent an immediate attack plan.
The next day, hijacked planes destroyed the World Trade Centre and hit the Pentagon, triggering the launch of an anti-Taliban offensive in October and the Taliban's fall a month later.
9/11 simply sped up the process. Hence, while it is technically true that we invaded Afghanistan because of 9/11, it is not true that we planned to invade Afghanistan because of 9/11.
Cheers, I'd appreciate your comments.
To simplify everything from above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqX4Jg3DrzY