Taliban states 35 - 42 US troops killed

There is no backing to this story, but...

<<SNIP>>
http://www.afghannews.net/printer.php?action=show&type=news&id=2896

Taliban down US ’copter; 35 troops killed
29. June 2005, 01:41
By Rahimullah Yusufzai

PESHAWAR (The News) - The Taliban claimed shooting down a US military’s Chinook helicopter and killing all 35 soldiers on board in Kunar province in eastern Afghanistan on Tuesday afternoon.

The Taliban also claimed killing another seven US soldiers in the same area in Kunar two hours before downing the helicopter. Mulla Mohammad Ismail, a pro-Taliban military commander in Kunar, told The News that 42 US soldiers were killed in two attacks in Shorek Darra in Kunar’s Manogay district.

If true, this would constitute the biggest losses for the US military since its invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. A US military spokesman was quoted as saying that 20 soldiers were killed when the chopper went down.

According to Mulla Ismail, the first incident took place at 2pm when Taliban intercepted and killed seven US soldiers who had been dropped by a helicopter in the Shorek Darra area in Manogay district.

....

Latifullah Hakimi, the main Taliban spokesman, made claims similar to Mulla Ismail about the two attacks in Kunar and the downing of the US helicopter. He also said the killing of the seven US soldiers had been filmed and the tape would be made available to the media soon.

<</SNIP>>

Altough they also said yesterday that some thirty people were aboard. So the rest are probably mercs, afghanis working for the U.S., etc. Who in the eyes of the Taliban may as well be U.S. troops.

This administration has screwed up America for the rest of our lifetime.

...like to lose their sons in the war their government got them into.

Deceased Soviet troops were sent home in small aluminum boxes that contained their cremated bones. The Soviet leadership didn't want the people know what was actually being done to the troops captured by the Afghans.

Remember when Rummy came up with the idea of cremating our KIAs in the Middle East? Gee...wonder where he got that idea?

It's our duty to our country to change it! We have to straighten this mess out. :patriot:

put too much stock in what they report, if 35 were killed it's just the kind of thing they would report after Bush's speech! Notice until recent chanook incident evrything was "going so well after the elections there"

Yeah, just like Iraq!

You know, the one that says that Afghanistan is now safe, secure and democratic?

More blood on Bush's hands

if they suddnely go all the way to 40 over several days... and padding casualty numbesr is a common practice for everybody involved in warfare

That country is now dominated by warlords now. Karzai has no more power in Afghanistan than the Soviet puppet-state the USSR left behind when they withdrew.

Except we don't have a border there like the Soviets.

Unless stacked up like wood.

including crew. Stacked up tight you can get 40.

I didn't know that.

A friend of mine flew them. He said they have a speed governor to keep you from going too fast, bending the airframe and making the rotors hit one another. But when things got hairy you reached out the window and cupped your hand over the speed censor and put the peddle to the metal.

Is that true? He was a navy guy.

But that's the load. Ask your friend.

...and weird stuff happened on almost every flight. Like the time my team and I were taking a ride out to our training area, and a small hydraulic hose popped loose in the rear of the aircraft. It started whipping around spraying fluid, and our eyes got bigger with each passing second. A crewman sauntered back, grabbed the hose out of the air with one hand, reattached it, and then told us that things like that happened all the time. That did very little to alleviate our collective soiled underwear! :-(

I was attached the the Marines at Camp Pendleton for about three years (1978-1981) as a Naval Gunfire Liaison Officer (NGLO) and later as a Fire Support Coordinator (FSC).

This are hardcore freedom fighter train by US experts to fight the Russian and the Russian puppet goverment. They all battle harden troops.
US make too many enemies with all the dumb moves. You can bomb their country you can occupy it. BUT you will never control it.

You are fighting the people of the land.

Yes,I've only been here for a couple of months, and read what is written, but usually too insecure to post. But I must respond.

I will never forget how the Taliban treated the Afghan women. As a lifelong feminist, (I marched for the ERA when I was only 18 back in the '70s) I cannot understand how members of such a misogynist govt like the Taliban can in anyway be considered "freedom fighters".

Let us not forget how women were not permitted to even go to a doctor under Taliban rule, were murdered and tortured, the destruction of ancient Buddhist statues, and the horrific executions of gay Afghans.

No, as much as I despise the excesses of this administration, I cannot embrace Taliban "resistance". Thanks for hearing me out.

So I don't understand how that's a "disagreement."

referring to the Taliban; that is to what I was referring.

as freedom fighters. They learned all their tricks from us to use against Russia. Now we call them terrorists..the CIA of course calls this blowback..I call it a fuckup.

I, however, completely agree with your assessment of the Taliban.

Yes, we taught them our dirty little tricks to fight the (then) Soviets, that is the source of their combat training.

But that is not where they learned their subjugation and oppression of women and gays. We must look elsewhere for that; a twisted interpretation of religion is the culprit; as always when religion is used to oppress, it is women and children who suffer the most. And, as we both agree, thousands of women and children suffered horribly. I will never forget the eyes of the little Afghan girls who were raped by Taliban soldiers in "Behind the Veil". They still haunt me. I suppose this is getting off subject, sorry.

The Afghans didn't have to learn guerrilla warfare tricks from us or anyone else.

They've been fighting invaders, occupiers, or each other for long before the US was even a country.

A lot of Americans just seem to think they invented or caused everything in the world.

They are, techinically, fighting for their own freedom from American occupation, even though they aren't planning on having a free society. I guess the founding fathers were "freedom fighters", even though they had no intention of freeing the slaves.

I cannot equate the founding fathers with the Taliban. The wrong of slavery cannot be used to rationalize the present day torture and subjugation of women.

While I don't doubt the Taliban are fighting the American occupation, I hope they fail, since many Afghans don't want the Taliban back anymore than they want the Americans.

Also, while I am totally against the war in Iraq, I see the war in Afghanistan differently. No connection to 9/11 in Iraq, despite the Bush BS from last night, but a definite connection to the Taliban's harboring of those who planned it.

But, reasonable people can disagree on that.

:hi:

for your kind welcome. I just started posting after lurking for two months, to get the "lay of the land". I don't agree with everything I see here, but I do carefully weigh all reasoned points of view here at DU. I have been a Democrat all my life, since my first vote for Carter in 1976 (oops there goes my age), but I don't walk in lockstep with a party line; it's the rebel still in me I guess.

Well, I hope I don't step on too many toes here. I like reasoned debate (with my own "kind" that is!)

Don't worry about "stepping on toes". Everyone who posts is protected by the rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I work for the CIA.

(Just kidding)

We are a reasonable lot, for the most part. Hope you enjoy being here. For so many of us, this is home and we love it. Disagreement with any of us is not a reason to be shy, though we can lose our cool sometimes.

Oh, there's a number of similarities.

They were both guerillag fighters up against a massive foreign military, considered the best in their respective time periods.

They were both highly motivated.

They both had morally unjustifiable human rights abuses.

I think the torture and subjugation of African Americans at the hands of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson was every bit as disgusting as the torture and subjugation of women at the hands of Mullah Omar.

I think Afghanistan is ever bit as bad as Iraq. The "harboring of Osama bin Laden" is a pretty lame excuse. It's been proven false as well, since the WH claims it knows where bin Laden is, but won't go get him.

which leads me to believe you and I are too far apart ideologically to have a reasoned debate. I suppose we could go toe to toe on whether the Taliban harbored, supported, and gave aid and comfort to bin Laden, the justification for war in Afghanistan, and the treatment of slaves 250 years ago vs. women in Afghanistan 4 years ago, but you will not change my beliefs, nor will I change yours.

So, I will bid you good day. Maybe we will agree on a different discussion thread.

Be well. Peace.

A "slaver wasn't that bad" apologist. Good luck with that.

But I cannot stop you from twisting my meaning. I don't know why you would want to do this.

It's out there.

and I disagree with it. I know what I believe, and I'm not a slavery apologist.

Look, I disagree with your assessment of the situation in Afghanistan and your characterizaton of the Taliban. They are misogynist evil thugs in my estimation, while the Foundation Fathers were flawed, but decent men who were a product of their unfortunate times. At this point we must agree to disagree.

That's it and that's all.

I meant to say Founding Fathers, not Foundation. I suspose working in the non-profit sector in fundraising leaves its mark!

And the CIA says they know where UBL is. When do we invade them? When do we bomb their wedding parties? Lots of Al Queda in countries around the world. Do we bomb them all to oblivion too?

I don't live in the US. People here ask me why all the US ever wants to do is kill, kill, kill.

Afghanistan has a fully legal and legitimate government. The Taliban are seeking to overthrow that government and reestablish a medieval theocracy there.

It takes a truly warped perspective to compare the US's founding fathers to the Taliban.

so was King George.

I think it takes a truly warped perspective to consider that sham of a democracy in Afghanistan "legitimate."

go ahead and side with the Taliban.

I just said they're comparably to the founding fathers. Maybe you're assuming I'm holding the founding fathers in high regard.

You're not really siding with the United States, you're siding with the Bush Administration who championed that phony election. Big difference.

on the planet. The only people objecting to it are ultra-far-left fringists and the Taliban.

Indeed, it is a tiny fringe of reactionaries who would seek to undermine a government that, by any objective measure, has the support of its people.

Barbarians such as the Taliban are the very enemies of freedom, and you will forgive me if I have little patience for those who adopt their perspective on Afghanistan.

Good day.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Afghanistan?"

I'm not going to debate someone who has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

http://www.undp.org.af/
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=16&Body=Afghanistan&Body1=
http://www.unama-afg.org/

Btw, if 90% of the planet objects to Afghanistan's government, why has every single government on the planet recognized it?

...Is that okay with you, or do I need to ask your permission?

And the current "elected government" of Afghanistan is no better than the one the Soviets appointed to govern Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan War.

You probably believe that the NeoCons were elected in December 2000, too.

But your unwillingness to go on record opposing the Taliban is duly noted.

That is a cheap shot, off topic argument.

Do you side with the opium producing warlords, too?

They OWN Afghanistan, outside of the puppet in Kabul.

I don't recall the women of Afghanistan being safe under their "wing" either. As bad as the Taliban is/was, I have seen statements from Afghani women who say they felt safer under the Taliban than the crazed lawlessness of the warlords.

I think they both suck.

for Iraq. Think about what Afghanistan, and the US's image worldwide, would look like if we had poured 1/4th the money and determination into Afghanistan that we did in the Iraq fiasco.

Political organization of Afghanistan's people is the only way to defeat the warlords. Many brave Afghanis are carrying on that fight. Just because Bush hasn't supported them enough is no reason to avoid supporting their cause.

I do like your style, Mr. Tragedy! While I tried to be tactful about it, I was taken aback by the comparison of the Taliban to the Founding Fathers. Of course they weren't perfect, but we must remember they were a product of their age, the 1700's. I believe they deserve more credit and respect than to be compared to a bunch of religious zealots whose cruelty and misogyny seems to have had no boundaries.

Ciao for now.

I have equal contempt for the betrayal of the values of the Enlightenment committed by those to my left as well as those to my right.

The Founding Fathers aspired to a better world, and began the modern democratic revolution. They moved the world in a positive direction.

The Taliban? Unambiguosly rotten and evil people, whose extinction would be a benefit to humanity.

I like your way of thinking and you are unafraid to just put it out there. I will probably go back to lurking, but will watch for your posts; I think I can learn a lot from you.

Thanks for the welcome by the way.

Who's to say that the Taliban are no more a product of their enviornment and time, much like the Founding Fathers? I don't think there is any way to compare the two, but, as a white woman, I can say that I don't know that the brutality of the Taliban is any more terrible than the slave trade. The slave trade affected several continents, as opposed to one country, and was probably more violent and dehumanizing on a day-to-day basis.

I think this all started out of the "freedom fighters" comment -- and I think most of the argument is over language. But, if you're going to speak in terms of people being "products of their time, and/or environment," then you must realize that the Taliban, too, might be a product of their particular time/environment.

I love the Enlightenment, as much as anyone -- Thomas Jefferson is one of my personal heroes -- and I often struggle with his ownership of slaves. I rationalize it, too, the same way -- "a product of his time." I must say, that if I truly believe that, it might be good for others, as well.

undeniable contributions to thought, philosophy, and humanity.

The Taliban? Not so much.

Kind of like a zeitgeist.

People are expected to learn over time so a person in 205 is supposed to know better than a person in 1775.

For instance, a doctor today might be a quack if he routinely used leaches to cure headaches.

However would you call a doctor in the 1300's the same?

Isn't there an expectation that by 2005 people should now treat women and minorities better than they did in 1775?

Or should the 1775 person be held to the same ethical standards?

Is there no expectation of growth?

was the pinnacle of human existence.

"I have equal contempt for the betrayal of the values of the Enlightenment committed by those to my left as well as those to my right.

The Founding Fathers aspired to a better world, and began the modern democratic revolution. They moved the world in a positive direction.

The Taliban? Unambiguosly rotten and evil people, whose extinction would be a benefit to humanity."

to go that direction of your last line.
Can smell a troll a mile off.

By last you mean this one?

"It takes a truly warped perspective to compare the US's founding fathers to the Taliban."

Because of that you are accusing him of being a troll? What a pathetic standard.

Geek Tragedy is putting together very well reasoned arguments unlike most trolls. His point of view of is a very refreshing departure from some other comments here.

refering to renabear

the US's founding fathers to the Taliban."

Agreed, thank you for your contribution of sanity to this thread.

Come on in, the water's fine.
You do know that the Taliban was put in power
by the US though, don't you?
They were removed from power by the US
when they refused to "play ball" with Unocal.
Trust me when I tell you the US does not give
a crap about the women or anyone else in Afghanistan.
BHN

Thank you.

Yes, I know the Taliban was supported by the US to continue the Cold War with the Soviets. I guess for me the issue is who is the "US" you referred to that doesn't care? If its Bush then yes, I agree, he doesn't care.

It's not the US people, or at least all of them, because I care, and many people I know were horrified by the Taliban's cruelties. I remember in 1996 feeling so helpless and wishing the administration would DO something! And both US administrations who have been in power since 1995-96 are impotent and responsible; for neither of them did a damn thing about the terrible state of women and children in Afghanistan.

I have a friend in the Marines in Afghanistan and he writes about the awful stories told to him by Afghans about the Taliban, so I don't blame the military men and women either. It's like Rwanda, when women and children are suffering, I want the US govt. to DO something about it! If we are supposed to be such a powerful nation, then we must help the least powerful. It's very frustrating.

were supported and created by our good friends the Pakistanis.

I also read Americans man attack 2 young women with sledgehammer
cause they say they were lesbians.

I am Horrified at the way the Americans man behave. Oh they so mistreated their women folk.

I also read that in Pakistan a women was rape by agroup of people as punishment for deed done by their family. Oh the Pakistanies are so cruel.

I also read women prisoners are rape by American men in prison in Iraq. Such culture :spew:

Would I be right to say that all American men are like this.

I am wrong if I do. Hence I cannot agreed with you.

were racists.

But every member of the KKK was.

The vast majority of people living in Afghanistan aren't followers of the Taliban.

A pawn for the greedy to manipulated no less a pawn then the American people who hide behind the Massive Surreal Mentality (MSM)
So I shall bow to you INFINITE wisdom to be able to read all their mind and judge them all evil. But being the humble finite being I am and not being able to read all Americans mind I still would judge most American as good.

It belittle me not to be humble and to question my own judgment. I refused to be an unbending bigot cause doing so I would but lose some respect for myself as I lose respect for others.

No doubts our views might differs it only a question 1+1=2 or 1+1=ALL
Maths has never being my strong point I shall bow to your mathematical genius.

So my :pals: I shall say you win for its only right as l am but a foreigner in this Americans site.

movement. Their ideology both unites them and makes them repugnant.

Yes they are a group of people .... Political so are the Republican ..the Democrats.... religious gee .... look at US today how divided the Christian group. Ultimately we are people...
Liberal, conservative , progressive we are still people grouping.

So much hatred, so much division... we are all people.
Should I judge American harshly because of the action of the Chimp
would I be right to say that as a group your ideology makes you repugnant.

I dont.

OSAMA INTENT TO ATTACK THE US remember this intelligence reports that no one was allow to see. Not the 911 commision, no under grilling by Boxer during Condi confirmation.
What if the report state that the Taliban warn of this weeks before 911 and no one pay attention. What if they know and still attack Afghan. Is this Justice reward for trying to prevent a disaster that kill 3000 peoples. Fact is they did send emissary to warn the US and UN. Would you still stand by your statements if the above is true?

Dear lord, the dumber the conspiracy theory, the longer it lives, apparently.

lord knows what conspiracy they will come up with next!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
"A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in
Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an
international energy company that wants to construct
a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to
Pakistan.

A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the
Taleban were expected to spend several days at the
company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas."

Sheesh!
Note to self:
Must remember to steer clear of conspiracy theory
news sources like the BBC...stick with Fox.

LOL.
BHN

http://www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/AFGHAN%20CONFLICT/TALIBAN/afghanistan%20taliban%20and%20us.htm
Thank you Geek, for setting these people straight
about these conspiracies...
Heck, what would we do without you?
LOL!
Thanks ever so much for your expert research and
analysis!
BHN

The BushCo/neoCON corporacrat machine exploit people. They don't give a rat's butt about people's rights or liberties. I mean, hell, they have reduced American's rights. Anyone really believe these profiteers give a damn about anyone else's rights?

conspiracy theory. That article certainly doesn't endorse such nuttery.

Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team
23 January 2002
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html>

QUOTES:

According to Afghan, Iranian, and Turkish government sources, Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan.

When one peers beyond all of the rhetoric of the White House and Pentagon concerning the Taliban, a clear pattern emerges showing that construction of the trans-Afghan pipeline was a top priority of the Bush administration from the outset. Although UNOCAL claims it abandoned the pipeline project in December 1998, the series of meetings held between U.S., Pakistani, and Taliban officials after 1998, indicates the project was never off the table.

Quite to the contrary, recent meetings between U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain and that country's oil minister Usman Aminuddin indicate the pipeline project is international Project Number One for the Bush administration. Chamberlain, who maintains close ties to the Saudi ambassador to Pakistan (a one-time chief money conduit for the Taliban), has been pushing Pakistan to begin work on its Arabian Sea oil terminus for the pipeline.

....snip....

The Taliban visits to Washington continued up to a few months prior to the September 11 attacks. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research's South Asian Division maintained constant satellite telephone contact with the Taliban in Kandahar and Kabul. Washington permitted the Taliban to maintain a diplomatic office in Queens, New York headed by Taliban diplomat Abdul Hakim Mojahed. In addition, U.S. officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Christina Rocca, who is also a former CIA officer, visited Taliban diplomatic officials in Islamabad. In the meantime, the Bush administration took a hostile attitude towards the Islamic State of Afghanistan, otherwise known as the Northern Alliance. Even though the United Nations recognized the alliance as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, the Bush administration, with oil at the forefront of its goals, decided to follow the lead of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and curry favor with the Taliban mullahs of Afghanistan. The visits of Islamist radicals did not end with the Taliban. In July 2001, the head of Pakistan's pro-bin Laden Jamiaat-i-Islami Party, Qazi Hussein Ahmed, also reportedly was received at the George Bush Center for Intelligence (aka, CIA headquarters) in Langley, Virginia.

Especially this one, which is all speculation regarding the actual cause of the invasion.

Their loyalty has nothing to do with the basic human values we are. They don't give a damn about truth or investment in human worth. They are in a tunnel, for themselves, to justify their BOX.

You can't MAKE them break out of their box. You can't MAKE them value something other than themselves.

KNOW THEM AND LET THEM GO.

corporacrats who lack regard for humanity.

However, I welcome and encourage your disdain for those of us who don't buy your fantasy tales. In fact, you should refuse to engage anyone who doesn't buy your tinfoil tales. The lower the profile you keep amongst the non-conspiracy set, the better.

They're vicious. :D

absolutely nothing! Not a damn thing!

Just to put my conspiracy laden brain at rest...
PLEASE, provide the documentation that disproves
the US support of the Taliban?
In advance with gratitude,
BHN

the bizarre, wholly unsupported theory that the US invaded Afghanistan to build a pipeline for Unocal.

You claim it is not so-
Prove it.
BHN

Sorry, but I can't debate facts and evidence with such folk.

Have a nice day.

And yes, I am having a nice day, under the circumstances.
Please, for my edification, apply your understanding
of "proving a negative" as it applies
to our discussion, so that I may be enlightened?
In advance and with gratitude,
BHN

build a pipeline there.

You have the burden of proof. If you can't provide even prima facie evidence of your theory, i.e. that a desire to build a pipeline in Afghanistan did in fact cause the US to invade, then your theory fails.



To put it another way:

Let's say I drink a soda after work. Tinfoil Timmy then claims I drank it because I want my butt to get fatter. I deny this, to which Tinfoil Timmy responds "Prove me wrong."

want control of the Caspian Sea pipelines than not.
I think plenty of posters on this thread have provided
reliable sources to that end- WHERE are your sources that
indicate the contrary?
BHN

Forget it. I have a policy of not debating the tinfoilers--pointless discussion.

In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian."

But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,579174,00.html

In 1998 A Unocal VP also told Congress they would like to build pipelines to carry Caspian basin oil and gas through Afghanistan but they would need a more cooperative government in power in Afghanistan, one which they could count on to be reliable and willing to negotiate.

From Unocal VP's address in 1998 to a congressional committee:

The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. 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. 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.

Unocal foresees a pipeline which would become part of a regional system that will gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. The 1,040-mile long oil pipeline would extend south through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast. This 42-inch diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. The estimated cost of the project, which is similar in scope to the trans-Alaska pipeline, is about $2.5 billion.

Given the plentiful natural gas supplies of Central Asia, our aim is to link gas resources with the nearest viable markets. This is basic for the commercial viability of any gas project. But these projects also face geopolitical challenges. Unocal and the Turkish company Koc Holding are interested in bringing competitive gas supplies to Turkey. The proposed Eurasia natural gas pipeline would transport gas from Turkmenistan directly across the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan and Georgia to Turkey. Of course the demarcation of the Caspian remains an issue.

Last October, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline Consortium, called CentGas, in which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to develop a gas pipeline which will link Turkmenistan's vast Dauletabad gas field with markets in Pakistan and possibly India. The proposed 790-mile pipeline will open up new markets for this gas, traveling from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan in Pakistan. The proposed extension would move gas on to New Delhi, where it would connect with an existing pipeline. As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline, CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.(emphasis added)

Above from the Congressional record and reprinted at: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html

BBC Tuesday, 18 September, 2001

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 .

<snip>

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.

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.

Read also about the jockeying for position between the Argentinian company Bridas and Unocal for the rights to build the Afghanistan pipeline. It looks like Bridas was coming out on top which did not sit well the the US government or with Unocal.

The following year, after extensive meetings with warlords throughout Afghanistan, Bridas had a 30-year agreement with the Rabbani regime to build and operate an 875-mile gas pipeline across Afghanistan.

Bulgheroni believed that his pipeline would promote peace as well as material wealth in the region. He approached other companies, including Unocal and its then-CEO, Roger Beach, to join an international consortium.

But Unocal was not interested in a partnership. The United States government, its affiliated transnational oil and construction companies, and the ruling elite of the West had coveted the same oil and gas transit route for years.

<snip>

A trans-Afghanistan pipeline was not simply a business matter, but a key component of a broader geo-strategic agenda: total military and economic control of Eurasia (the Middle East and former Soviet Central Asian republics). Zbigniew Brezezinski describes this region in his book "The Grand Chessboard-American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives" as "the center of world power." Capturing the region's oil wealth, and carving out territory in order to build a network of transit routes, was a primary objective of US military interventions throughout the 1990s in the Balkans, the Caucasus and Caspian Sea.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203A.html

be a good idea.

Unfortunately for the conspirazoids out there, that does not support the claim that the US invaded Afghanistan because it wanted to build a pipeline for natural gas.

Indeed, the overwhelming weight of the evidence--from the 911 attacks and bin Laden's refuge in Afghanistan as the more logical explanation, to Bush's meager efforts to stabilize Afghanistan, to the fact that not one centimeter of pipeline has been constructed--not to mention the absolute and complete lack of evidence that the Bush administration was thinking pipeline when it invaded--all point to one conclusion: the pipeline theory is pure nuttery.

Of course, no amount of logic and evidence can convince tinfoilers that their faith-based theories are incorrect, so adios.

Maybe with the continuing instability in the region, it's not working out as easily as they thought it would once they ditched the Taliban.

BBC 27 Dec, 2002

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.

This follows a summit meeting bringing together the presidents of the three countries last May when the project received formal go-ahead.

The pipeline would represent the first major foreign investment in Afghanistan in many years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm

country.


Moreover, even if the pipeline gets built some day, that in no way proves that the war was fought because they wanted to build a pipeline.

It is a silly theory.

It's not like your government has ever lied to you before. :rofl:

Common sense, logic, and evidence all indicate that the pipeline theory is pig crap.

for an Afghanistan pipeline, especially when overly optimistic estimates of new found Caspian Sea basin reserves were being made.

Back in the mid 1990's there were apparently expectations that oil and natural gas fields in the Caspian Sea basin would be a major player in terms of providing new oil and natural gas supplies which could play a part in offsetting depletion in the older more traditional oil producing countries and regions. In light of growing concerns that most, if not all, non OPEC producers were about to peak it would have added further incentive for the oil business connected robber barons in the Bush administration to get an Afghanistan pipeline through. And we know from a speech the Big Dick made to the London Petroleum Institute in 1999 that oil field depletion and finding the new supplies of oil to make up for depletion and rising demand was weighing on his mind.

From the standpoint of the oil industry obviously and I’ll talk a little later on about gas, but obviously for over a hundred years we as an industry have had to deal with the pesky problem that once you find oil and pump it out of the ground you’ve got to turn around and find more or go out of business. Producing oil is obviously a self-depleting activity. Every year you’ve got to find and develop reserves equal to your output just to stand still, just to stay even. This is true for companies as well in the broader economic sense as it is for the world. A new merged company like Exxon-Mobil will have to secure over a billion and a half barrels of new oil equivalent reserves every year just to replace existing production. It’s like making one hundred per cent interest discovery in another major field of some five hundred million barrels equivalent every four months or finding two Hibernias a year.

For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?

Above quote from Dick Cheney's 1999 speech to the London Petroleum Institute posted at: http://www.energybulletin.net/559.html

Unfortunately it turned out that the Caspian reserves, while significant are nowhere near as extensive as first thought and much of the crude being extracted is the high sulfur content stuff that is hard to refine.

From an Oct 2002 interview with petroleum geologist Dr. Colin Campbell:

FTW: Will Central Asian-Caspian pipelines have an impact on the crisis? How long will it take them to come on line?

Campbell: There was talk of the place holding over 200 Gb (I think emanating from the USGS ), but the results after 10 years of work have been disappointing. The West came in with high hopes. The Soviets found Tengiz onshore in 1979 with about 6 Gb of very deep, high sulfur oil in a reef. Chevron took over and is now producing it with difficulty. But offshore they found a huge prospect called Kashagan in a similar geological setting to Tengiz. If it had been full, it could have contained 200 Gb, but they have now drilled three deep wells at huge cost, finding that instead of being a single reservoir it, like Tengiz, is made up of reefs. Reserves are now quoted at between 9 Gb and 13 Gb. BP-Statoil has pulled out. Caspian production won't make any material difference to world supply. There is however a lot of gas in the vicinity.

To put it in perspective this would supply the world for a little over a year, but it is broadly the same as U.S. potential

It is quite possible that the Afghan war was about securing a strong point in this area. But interest in it has now dwindled along with Caspian prospects as the U.S. turns to Iraq, which does have some oil. It is curious that these two U.S. military exercises had different pretexts

A) Afghanistan was to find the supposed architect of Sept. 11 -- in which it failed; and

B) Iraq is about a sudden and unexplained fear that it might develop some objectionable weapons that might pose a threat to someone in the future. North Korea, which already has nuclear weapons and long range missiles -- and isn't exactly a friendly place -- is not deemed a threat. The cynic can be forgiven for thinking there is some other motive for these military moves: could it be oil?

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102302_campbell.html

And it still leaves the theory that the US's primary motive in invading Afghanistan was the pipeline without any factual support.

I don't mean to apologize for the big petroleum interests in this country. They were more than willing to do business with the Taliban while the Taliban were committing gendercide.

And it was an oil pipeline that Unocal and the Argentinian based Bridas were competing to build.

But as Campbell said in his interview linked in my last post, it looks like interest might have petered after the Caspian Sea basin reserves were found to be lower and more difficult to pump than expected and of the poorer high-sulfur content type of crude. Now, it looks like they figure the best option would be a natural gas pipeline.

Campbell:
It is quite possible that the Afghan war was about securing a strong point in this area. But interest in it has now dwindled along with Caspian prospects as the U.S. turns to Iraq, which does have some oil. It is curious that these two U.S. military exercises had different pretexts

A) Afghanistan was to find the supposed architect of Sept. 11 -- in which it failed; and

B) Iraq is about a sudden and unexplained fear that it might develop some objectionable weapons that might pose a threat to someone in the future. North Korea, which already has nuclear weapons and long range missiles -- and isn't exactly a friendly place -- is not deemed a threat. The cynic can be forgiven for thinking there is some other motive for these military moves: could it be oil?

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102302_campbell.html

I just don't think you can ignore the Peak Oil issue in all this in motivating the Busholini administration in going into Afghanistan and booting out the Taliban, especially if they thought the Caspian Sea basin reserves could be a major factor in amelioroating the effect of oil depletion and they could make a nice buck off of getting those reserves to market.

According to GT, your links are yet more "Timmy Tinfoil" news sources.
Never mind that GT has YET to provide an actual
credible research source that proves otherwise...
BLEH!
BHN

You know, Osama bin Laden running his terrorist operation out of there and everything?

Let's see: 3000 people killed on American soil by an organization based in Afghanistan, or a pipeline that still is decades from being built. I wonder which is a more likely cause for the military action which had the support of 90% of Americans?


Of course, I reject the MIHOP nonsense too. So, I of course am one of the stupid sheep who doesn't belong to the tinfoil club.

Osama? The US rejected a deal that would have seen him removed to Pakistan under house arrest while an international tribunal assessed evidence against him. The US stood down forces at Tora Bora, after leaving unguarded the only reasonable means of escape, and watched while he was choppered out. (See the story originally published in The Fayetteville Observer, Aug 2, 2002.)

Osama? How soon after the invasion of Afghanistan did Bush, after stirring up America with talk of "dead or alive," did he say "I don't care where he is"?

But the invasion of Afghanistan is a great success. Seen the figures for poppy production lately? Do you know what all that drug money means for the Western financial institutions which launder it?

However, if one operates by the assumption that Bush bungling the capture of bin Laden means that wasn't the purpose of going in there, one also must reject the thesis that we went in to create a stable, pro-pipeline Afghanistan.

Your logic escapes me. And not for the first time.

I would also like to know why most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and the portions of the 911 report mentioning Saudi Arabia have not been released?
:thumbsup:

...live there? Do some homework, because the customs of that region for the last 1000 years are pretty much what the Taliban practiced in a brutal and public fashion.

I did not realize that they should be call Talibans and their women are Afghans. I shall work hard at learning this may you enlighten me where can I the source from where I can start my reeducation?

Other than a lot of them are now dead.

And did ya miss bushCartel & their puppet Karzai welcoming Taleban back into Afghanistan's government?

Islamist disciples of bin Laden thinks that? Blech.

I agree with you wholeheartedly! Talk about Orwellian..to use the phrase "freedom fighter" in connection with these thugs should stink in the nostrils of all decent people. I like your way of thinking, Mr. Tragedy.

elected government are the exact opposite of "freedom fighters."

They are anti-freedom fighters, terrorists, thugs, goons, and criminals. They are the bad guys.

Welcome to DU, and enjoy the freedom of speech offered here (though, of course, we also have to hear things that offend us--such is the big tent).

But yet at one time they were more or less our bad guys per this
T]he media myth-making machine is spewing out alarming reports of the 'shadowy force' of Taleban 'fundamentalists' in Darth Vaderish black turbans who want to impose 'purist Islamic' rule.

"That's scary stuff. But it's not true, and may even be dangerous in this case. Because the Taleban could be the best thing that's happened to Afghanistan in years..."
"he media myth-making machine is spewing out alarming reports of the 'shadowy force' of Taleban 'fundamentalists' in Darth Vaderish black turbans who want to impose 'purist Islamic' rule.

"That's scary stuff. But it's not true, and may even be dangerous in this case. Because the Taleban could be the best thing that's happened to Afghanistan in years..."-WSJ-02/22/95 eastern edition p.A20
While I can't use the term freedom fighter I'm not really sure what term applies to someone seeking to oust an occupying foreign army and the puppet regime they installed.

I hope no one construes this to mean that I support the remaining taliban or their/our former mercenary warlord allies. Mostly I guess I just want this administration to, for once, level with us and accept responsibility for(euphemism) copulating with the canine.

is pure rubbish. There is not some sort of horrible occupation going on in Afghanistan. The biggest threat to the future of Afghanistan is anarchy and the Taliban, not the United States.

Also, why are you quoting 1995 WSJ editorials to me? I don't care what those wankers say today, let alone ten years from now.

The Talibans goal is to destroy any hope of democracy or modernization in Afghanistan. That makes them bad guys.

It is foolish to automatically assume the US is a bad guy in every situation. I

To paint the US as the bad guy in every situation is just as flawed and blind as the right painting the US as the good guy in every situation. Things are just not that cut and dried. And frankly, it plays right into the hands of our ideological enemies.

I refuse to blame the US for everything wrong on the planet when there are plenty of other governments in glass houses. By the same token, I will not turn a blind eye to my country's foibles and grievous errors, such as the Iraq war and the election of George Bush.

You can be a liberal and love your country. But not blindly.

Go grab a book called, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". It explains a LOT about the conditions of the world.

Believe me when I tell you that, the BushCo/neoCON cabal are hurting you, me and humanity. They really do not give a rat's ass about helping people. They EXPLOIT everyone.

Well put, well reasoned reply, thank you.

He stuck to his arguments and continued to promote sanity in this thread.

Good job, Geek Tragedy.

:silly:

Just kidding!

so call Taliban warn UK and US officials weeks before 911 that OBL was going to attack the US.
Why does you not know cause the 911 commission was not allowed to read this

Please recall this fiasco
OBL intent to attack the US
only title was release and not the entire documents.
no press coverage on this
go view Boxer question Rice on this during her confirmation
Then kill some azz to get this documents to be release.

The truth is there. Only that it is suppress.

Also
2 months before 911
OBL was admitted to America Hospital in Dubai
He was visited by CIA operatives the say operative was recall to US cause he talk about the meeting

Maybe all this are fake who knows
But I question

Any national force fighting occupation has a claim on the term.

They're theocratic thugs, criminals, and barbarians whose goal is to restore the medieval theocracy they had in place before the US, to its great credit, threw the bastards out of power and began the process of democratization in Afghanistan.

Sorry, but there are good guys and bad guys in Afghanistan. And anyone who is either neutral between the Taliban and Afghanistan's government or actually favors the Taliban has no business calling themself a progressive.

I think I have heard that somewhere before - but never in the same sentence as progressive ;)

or even be neutral to groups like the Klan, the Nazi party, or the Taliban and be considered a progressive. Opposition to racism, tyranny, and barbarism are all part and parcel of being a progressive.

Your point however, raises an interesting question about guilt by association.

Who are the Talebans and is that the only force fighting the coalition forces? Are all Pashtuns Talebans, are no Tajiks or Uzbeks Talebans. What about your Mujahedins or regular Afghans.

Do you think that Pashtuns, which traditionally made out the Taleban movement are the only people in captivity and getting killed in battles in Afghanistan? Are they then Talebans? Are all Talebans strict Jihadists?

IMHO I believe that the coalition in Afghanistan is fighting a myriad of groups and networks. The current war has probably brought together many fighters from various groups who in ordinary circumstances would be at each others throats. Bottom point is that we, you and I have no idea who shot down that plane only who claimed it.

I´m with ministrel boy on this one.

when I see the Taliban portrayed as freedom fighters.

and that was just in passing references when he was trying to claim that Iraq would be a big success like Afghanistan.

A mighty busy bunch considering they're working from the grave. Could it be that our glorious "victory" over them was announced a tad early?

Zarqawi.

and talkative.

that these were Navy Special operations personal responding to forces on the ground involved in heavy fighting with al-qaeda forces. hmmm.. seems there may be some truth in this report.

that the Taliban were totally destroyed and that the Mayor of Kabul, Karazi, is the great Democratic Leader of a new Democratic Republic of Afghansitan. This report of a Taliban resurgence must be an invention of Liberals that hate Amerika.

and we know our glorious leader would never deceive us. Right comrade?

nothing to see here.

move along.

Facts are pesky. The Glorious leader even cries for us. He is great with kids, also. Remember he patiently allowed those children to finish the Goat story even when Amerika was under attack.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This goes on all the time in AFG. Our troops are being killed, firefights rage...

Our attention is suddenly drawn back to it now, when the Iraq mess can't be justified? Coincidence?

Total number in the chopper not yet known; 13 dead found so far.