"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98B249FDA59A0rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...

After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Dr. Bipolar"
<g-ray52@excite.com> Spat the Words

Mich wrote:

"Dr. Bipolar" <g-ray52@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1168238960.362118.185040@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Ian MacLure wrote:

Must be one awfully busy Jew then.
Heck the US military has hundreds of thousands to
do that sort of thing.
Wonder if he's any good at it.
Sure hope so.

IBM

Ehud Olmert ... only takes him to give the order to nuke attack
Iran. George W. Bush... only took him to give the orders to start
two wars.

Two wars? Afghanistan clearly initiated an act of war against the
USA, so you are clearly given to fabrications.

Afghanistan attacked the US ? A international crime syndicate
(having a religious agenda) comprised of at most 5,000 members,
attacked the US. Iraq was unrelated to those who had attacked us.

Bush responded to a crime outbreak by mobilizing the military,
by settling old personal scores in Iraq, and by handing out
no-bid war contracts to his best buddies. Bush is a liar and
a fraud.

No, what is 'clear' from the verifiable evidence is that Al Qaeda did
the
deed, and the Taliban gave it safe harbor, material support, and
recruits.
Prove that the Taliban was involved in the planning and execution of
the
attack and you can bark at my so-called 'fabrications.'
Until then, try to accept the lack of evidence, and that, in its
absence,
the Taliban didn't attack on 9/11.
Therefore, Bush gave the order to start that war. No other hostile
action
from the Taliban was noted, either near its borders or past them, that
threatened the security of the US or its vital interests.
The following extract from the official 9/11 Commission Report makes a
'scant' case for the Taliban's role in the 9/11 attacks --

Although Bin Ladin's top priority apparently was to attack the United
States, others had a different view. The Taliban leaders put their
main

emphasis on the year's military offensive against the Northern
Alliance,
an offensive that ordinarily would begin in the late spring or summer.
They certainly hoped that this year's offensive would finally finish
off
their old enemies, driving them from Afghanistan. From the Taliban's
perspective, an attack against the United States might be
counterproductive. It might draw the Americans into the war against
them,
just when final victory seemed within their grasp.181

There is evidence that Mullah Omar initially opposed a major al Qaeda
operation directly against the United States in 2001. Furthermore, by
July, with word spreading of a coming attack, a schism emerged among
the
senior leadership of al Qaeda. Several senior members reportedly
agreed

with Mullah Omar. Those who reportedly sided with Bin Ladin included
Atef,
Sulayman Abu Ghayth, and KSM. But those said to have opposed him were
weighty figures in the organization-including Abu Hafs the
Mauritanian,

Sheikh Saeed al Masri, and Sayf al Adl. One senior al Qaeda operative
claims to recall Bin Ladin arguing that attacks against the United
States
needed to be carried out immediately to support insurgency in the
Israeli-occupied territories and protest the presence of U.S. forces
in

Saudi Arabia. Beyond these rhetorical appeals, Bin Ladin also
reportedly
thought an attack against the United States would benefit al Qaeda by
attracting more suicide operatives, eliciting greater donations, and
increasing the number of sympathizers willing to provide logistical
assistance.182

Mullah Omar is reported to have opposed this course of action for
ideological reasons rather than out of fear of U.S. retaliation. He is
said to have preferred for al Qaeda to attack Jews, not necessarily
the

United States. KSM contends that Omar faced pressure from the
Pakistani

government to keep al Qaeda from engaging in operations outside
Afghanistan. Al Qaeda's chief financial manager, Sheikh Saeed, argued
that
al Qaeda should defer to the Taliban's wishes. Another source says
that

Sheikh Saeed opposed the operation, both out of deference to Omar and
because he feared the U.S. response to an attack. Abu Hafs the
Mauritanian
reportedly even wrote Bin Ladin a message basing opposition to the
attacks
on the Qur'an.183

According to KSM, in late August, when the operation was fully
planned,

Bin Ladin formally notified the al Qaeda Shura Council that a major
attack
against the United States would take place in the coming weeks. When
some
council members objected, Bin Ladin countered that Mullah Omar lacked
authority to prevent al Qaeda from conducting jihad outside
Afghanistan.
Though most of the Shura Council reportedly disagreed, Bin Ladin
persisted. The attacks went forward.184

The story of dissension within al Qaeda regarding the 9/11 attacks is
probably incomplete. The information on which the account is based
comes
from sources who were not privy to the full scope of al Qaeda and
Taliban
planning. Bin Ladin and Atef, however, probably would have known, at
least, that

a.. The general Taliban offensive against the Northern Alliance
would

rely on al Qaeda military support.
b.. Another significant al Qaeda operation was making progress
during

the summer-a plot to assassinate the Northern Alliance leader, Ahmed
Shah
Massoud. The operatives, disguised as journalists, were in Massoud's
camp
and prepared to kill him sometime in August.Their appointment to see
him
was delayed.185
But on September 9, the Massoud assassination took place. The delayed
Taliban offensive against the Northern Alliance was apparently
coordinated
to begin as soon as he was killed, and it got under way on September
10.186

As they deliberated earlier in the year, Bin Ladin and Atef would
likely
have remembered that Mullah Omar was dependent on them for the Massoud
assassination and for vital support in the Taliban military
operations.

KSM remembers Atef telling him that al Qaeda had an agreement with the
Taliban to eliminate Massoud, after which the Taliban would begin an
offensive to take over Afghanistan. Atef hoped Massoud's death would
also
appease the Taliban when the 9/11 attacks happened. There are also
some

scant indications that Omar may have been reconciled to the 9/11
attacks
by the time they occurred.187

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:hswk10ARt6AJ:www.9-

11commission.gov/r

eport/911Report_Ch7.htm+evidence+taliban+attacked+9/11

&hl=en&gl=us&ct=cln

k&cd=9

Essentially, the evidence to nail down the Taliban's direct role in
planning
and/or executing the Al Qaeda attack isn't there. There are
'indications' --possibilities -- that exist, but nothing that can
prove

it. If this played out in court, the Taliban would be found not
guilty,

ostensibly from a lack of verifiable evidence.

So, in the absence of that verifiable evidence, one can only conclude
Bush
started the war against Afghanistan's government and that clearly no
evidence
exists to prove the Taliban had 'initiated an act of war' or carried
one
out, or planned one, against the USA, as you contend.

You are either misinformed, have a poor memory, or are 'clearly given'
to
supporting fiction over fact. And it is fiction unless it can be
verified
fact, no matter how badly you wish it to be otherwise. We cannot
commit

men and women to war, have them mass murder or be murdered, maim or
be maimed, and destroy property and infrastructure, and use up huge
amounts of public
money, on the basis of whatever guesses, rumors, opinions, suspicions
or fears you might
entertain.

No WMD verifiable evidence and no evidence for the Taliban attacking
the US on 9/11. Those who argue that only violations of UN Resolutions
were justification enough for an attack on Iraq, ignore the illegal
(against the UN Charter) maverick role of the Bush administration in
its misinterpretation of what comprises 'serious consequences' in
justifying a large-scale invasion and occupation. Certainly, the UNSC
vote never gave the US the okay for it, and major key allies refused
to participate in the pre-emptive invasion.

It takes only one man, as I said, to start a war and when he's wrong,
the human trajedy is enormous and far-reaching for anyone who has a
conscience about unneeded death and injury. Prolonging the Iraq War's
trajedy by attempting a 'save face' smaller operation in Baghdad, as
is being seriously contemplated now, is a criminal act, irresponsible,
unproductive, and quite unnecessary. It is a criminal act piled upon
other criminality, irrationality, lying, misdirection, and negligence
exhibited by what I truly believe are reckless, fanatical, mentally
ill leaders. Only a pull-out of US forces can do any good now, as a
civil war builds momentum, and Iraqis' confidence in the US-supported
government diminishes.

AK was there as a guest of the Taliban and worked with the Taliban to
further the Taliban's objectives.

"Some 200 bin Laden supporters and their families departed Khartoum for
Jalalabad by air in 1996. Thereafter al-Qaeda enjoyed the Taliban's
protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their Ministry of
Defense"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda