| Quote: |
The military has successfully tested what it described as the world's most powerful non-nuclear air-delivered bomb, state television reported, the latest show of the nation's military muscle.
Channel One television said the new ordnance, nicknamed the "Father of All Bombs" is four times more powerful than the U.S. "Mother of All Bombs."
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2007/09/13/015.html |
Well, now the father of all bombs is here, we can soon expect son of all bombs, daughter of all bombs which have four times more power to destroy the world hundred times over.
Moscow seems to have a subtle message by naming their bomb "Father of All Bombs" compared to Washington's "Mother of All Bombs" that means, father always "f***s" the mother but let's see if the roles change! Anything can happen in a bedroom! HAHA!When I saw this on TV they called it a "Vacuum Bomb".
Do any of you know the technology behind this new bomb and how it works?
Well, Such devices generally detonate in two stages. First a small blast disperses a main load of explosive material into a cloud, which then either spontaneously ignites in air or is set off by a second charge.
This explosion generates a pressure wave that reaches much further than that from a conventional explosive. The consumption of gases in the blast also generates a partial vacuum that can compound damage and injuries caused by the explosion itself.
The main destruction is inflicted by an ultrasonic shockwave and an incredibly high temperature.
All that is alive merely evaporates.
World is getting a scary place to live; the rise of fundalentalisms, the tensions between first and thisrd world... we do not need more bombs
| MadeinIndia wrote: |
| Quote: | The military has successfully tested what it described as the world's most powerful non-nuclear air-delivered bomb, state television reported, the latest show of the nation's military muscle.
Channel One television said the new ordnance, nicknamed the "Father of All Bombs" is four times more powerful than the U.S. "Mother of All Bombs."
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2007/09/13/015.html |
Well, now the father of all bombs is here, we can soon expect son of all bombs, daughter of all bombs which have four times more power to destroy the world hundred times over.
Moscow seems to have a subtle message by naming their bomb "Father of All Bombs" compared to Washington's "Mother of All Bombs" that means, father always "f***s" the mother but let's see if the roles change! Anything can happen in a bedroom! HAHA! |
It's just a very large, thermobaric explosive. No need to worry about armageddon over these because, as powerful as they can be, they are still conventional weapons and firecrackers compared to nuclear (fission) or thermonuclear (fusion) weapons, not to mention that they don't produce radioactive fallout.
We even use the same technology in newly developed 40mm grenades.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/thermobaric.htm
Respectfully,
MI've heared about it. It deals massive power and luckily no waste after the explosion. Not that it is a reason to use it.
I hope these bombs will never be used and will be there only as deterrents. But our world is now in a very dangerous situations. Countries like Iran, North Korea and Pakistan, the Axis of Evil is threatening to take this world to the verge of destruction.
It is a well known fact that this whole century, it has been either the Nazi's and Islamic terrorists who have gone crazy! Even the communists were much better.
One nuke in the hands of one terrorist organization, and we are all doomed! And it looks very much possible with countries like Pakistan and North Korea don't have any rule of land in their own countries and they continue this export of terrorism with impunity. I don't understand why US is still rewarding Pakistan with more military supplies and f-16's and billions of dollars of aid? Are they fools? Don't they realize the money they are giving this country will stream down to militants?
Everyone knows the fact that Pakistan created Taliban! Everyone knows the fact that Taliban and Al Qaida are close buddies. Now asking Pakistan to fight against their own creation is crazy, they are just doing it for an eye wash but have their own secret pact with the Taliban. US is being taken for a big ride! I hope they realize it soon!
| MadeinIndia wrote: |
I hope these bombs will never be used and will be there only as deterrents. But our world is now in a very dangerous situations. Countries like Iran, North Korea and Pakistan, the Axis of Evil is threatening to take this world to the verge of destruction.
It is a well known fact that this whole century, it has been either the Nazi's and Islamic terrorists who have gone crazy! Even the communists were much better.
One nuke in the hands of one terrorist organization, and we are all doomed! And it looks very much possible with countries like Pakistan and North Korea don't have any rule of land in their own countries and they continue this export of terrorism with impunity. I don't understand why US is still rewarding Pakistan with more military supplies and f-16's and billions of dollars of aid? Are they fools? Don't they realize the money they are giving this country will stream down to militants?
Everyone knows the fact that Pakistan created Taliban! Everyone knows the fact that Taliban and Al Qaida are close buddies. Now asking Pakistan to fight against their own creation is crazy, they are just doing it for an eye wash but have their own secret pact with the Taliban. US is being taken for a big ride! I hope they realize it soon! |
It's no different than the U.S. providing military aid, food, and money to the USSR during World War II. Currently Pakistan's government is useful, and therefore, like the USSR circa 1940-1945, we will do everything within our power to help them as long as they are helping us against our enemies. And like the end of World War II, once this (very long) war ends, U.S. policies toward Pakistan could change dramatically.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
| MadeinIndia wrote: | I hope these bombs will never be used and will be there only as deterrents. But our world is now in a very dangerous situations. Countries like Iran, North Korea and Pakistan, the Axis of Evil is threatening to take this world to the verge of destruction.
It is a well known fact that this whole century, it has been either the Nazi's and Islamic terrorists who have gone crazy! Even the communists were much better.
One nuke in the hands of one terrorist organization, and we are all doomed! And it looks very much possible with countries like Pakistan and North Korea don't have any rule of land in their own countries and they continue this export of terrorism with impunity. I don't understand why US is still rewarding Pakistan with more military supplies and f-16's and billions of dollars of aid? Are they fools? Don't they realize the money they are giving this country will stream down to militants?
Everyone knows the fact that Pakistan created Taliban! Everyone knows the fact that Taliban and Al Qaida are close buddies. Now asking Pakistan to fight against their own creation is crazy, they are just doing it for an eye wash but have their own secret pact with the Taliban. US is being taken for a big ride! I hope they realize it soon! |
It's no different than the U.S. providing military aid, food, and money to the USSR during World War II. Currently Pakistan's government is useful, and therefore, like the USSR circa 1940-1945, we will do everything within our power to help them as long as they are helping us against our enemies. And like the end of World War II, once this (very long) war ends, U.S. policies toward Pakistan could change dramatically.
Respectfully,
M |
Good point. A huge list of countries are in debt because they borrowed money from America.And Putin is begging for another Cold War.
USA! USA! USA!
Hah ...
hey its not far when "bro in-law bomb", "sis-in-law bomb", "mother-in-law bomb", "grandfather bomb", "great great grandfather bomb", "grandmother bomb", "sister bomb", "brother bomb", "son bomb", "daughter bomb", ...uuuuuuffff hahahaha
no offence 
hahaha.... yeahh.... im not in favor of weapons any more... I I cant belive when people talks about the power of destroying the earth and things like that... its terrible... it really is.
| MadeinIndia wrote: |
I hope these bombs will never be used and will be there only as deterrents. But our world is now in a very dangerous situations. Countries like Iran, North Korea and Pakistan, the Axis of Evil is threatening to take this world to the verge of destruction.
It is a well known fact that this whole century, it has been either the Nazi's and Islamic terrorists who have gone crazy! Even the communists were much better.
One nuke in the hands of one terrorist organization, and we are all doomed! And it looks very much possible with countries like Pakistan and North Korea don't have any rule of land in their own countries and they continue this export of terrorism with impunity. I don't understand why US is still rewarding Pakistan with more military supplies and f-16's and billions of dollars of aid? Are they fools? Don't they realize the money they are giving this country will stream down to militants?
Everyone knows the fact that Pakistan created Taliban! Everyone knows the fact that Taliban and Al Qaida are close buddies. Now asking Pakistan to fight against their own creation is crazy, they are just doing it for an eye wash but have their own secret pact with the Taliban. US is being taken for a big ride! I hope they realize it soon! |
What is the reason to cry against Pakistan when this post is about a Russian Bomb?
Indians are so happy about their new-found AMERICAN COOLIE status that they refuse
to accept the fact that USA too was involved in the creation of Al-Qaeda and Taliban.
Last edited by ibay on Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:57 am; edited 1 time in total | ibay wrote: |
Indians are so happy about their new-found AMERICAN COOLIE status that they refuse
to accept the fact that USA too was involved in the creation of Al-Qaeda and Taliban. |
Evidence?
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
| ibay wrote: | Indians are so happy about their new-found AMERICAN COOLIE status that they refuse
to accept the fact that USA too was involved in the creation of Al-Qaeda and Taliban. |
Evidence?
Respectfully,
M |
Respectfully, Either you are living in a world of your own which is far away from reality or you are in a state of denial. What evidence would you give to prove someone wrong if he says cold war between USA and USSR never happened? | ibay wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | | ibay wrote: | Indians are so happy about their new-found AMERICAN COOLIE status that they refuse
to accept the fact that USA too was involved in the creation of Al-Qaeda and Taliban. |
Evidence?
Respectfully,
M |
Respectfully, Either you are living in a world of your own which is far away from reality or you are in a state of denial. What evidence would you give to prove someone wrong if he says cold war between USA and USSR never happened? |
I'm not sure what you are implying, unless you are claiming that your accusation is as obvious as the Cold War.
However, Al-Qaeda evolved from a group of foreign Arab fighters during the Soviet-Afghan War. The United States, through the CIA and Pakistan, funded only Afghan mujahideen during the war, not foreign fighters like Abdullah Yusuf Azzam's Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK).
As CNN's Peter Bergen stated in his investigation, the idea of the CIA funding or training bin Laden is "a folk myth."
With regard to the Taliban, I'm not sure why you claim the USA played any role in their creation. Sure, some Taliban members, including their founder, Mohamed Umar, probably fought against the Soviets during the war (and therefore served in units that probably received U.S. support). However much of the Taliban members were religious students and refugees. And at no time did the United States support or provide aid to the Taliban. Quite the opposite.
Pakistan did play a pivotal role in the emergence of the Taliban, though.
Arguing that the United States helped create the Taliban is akin to arguing that the USA helped create the Japanese Imperial Navy and contributed to the attack on Pearl Harbor because Admiral Yamamoto attended Harvard.
Respectfully,
M
References:
Al Qaeda
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm
http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=6
http://www.terrorismfiles.org/organisations/al_qaida.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden
Taliban
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588418/Taliban.html
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9610/05/taleban/
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175372,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban | Moonspider wrote: |
I'm not sure what you are implying, unless you are claiming that your accusation is as obvious as the Cold War.
However, Al-Qaeda evolved from a group of foreign Arab fighters during the Soviet-Afghan War. The United States, through the CIA and Pakistan, funded only Afghan mujahideen during the war, not foreign fighters like Abdullah Yusuf Azzam's Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK).
As CNN's Peter Bergen stated in his investigation, the idea of the CIA funding or training bin Laden is "a folk myth."
With regard to the Taliban, I'm not sure why you claim the USA played any role in their creation. Sure, some Taliban members, including their founder, Mohamed Umar, probably fought against the Soviets during the war (and therefore served in units that probably received U.S. support). However much of the Taliban members were religious students and refugees. And at no time did the United States support or provide aid to the Taliban. Quite the opposite.
Pakistan did play a pivotal role in the emergence of the Taliban, though.
Arguing that the United States helped create the Taliban is akin to arguing that the USA helped create the Japanese Imperial Navy and contributed to the attack on Pearl Harbor because Admiral Yamamoto attended Harvard.
Respectfully,
M
References:
Al Qaeda
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm
http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=6
http://www.terrorismfiles.org/organisations/al_qaida.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden
Taliban
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588418/Taliban.html
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9610/05/taleban/
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175372,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban |
Do you think there must exist a Website to prove every truth in the world? If I provide more web addresses than yours which make opposing claims, will you accept it then? For my part, I am going to put up some simple and well known points.
- So USA never had any direct contact with any Arab group, how did Saudi Arabia manage to train and send 100,000 fighters into an American backed war? Was there an open party going on in Soviet Occupied Afghanistan for anyone to join? Has Saudi Arabia ever sent help to such an extent to any other country? The fact is that they were just doing an outsourced job for USA.
- Why was Osama Bin Laden placed on top ten freedom fighter's list? (as claimed by US officials)
- As claimed by Osama himself, he was offered a hand of friendship by Americans and he made famous friendship statement which was printed by newspapers all over the world before and after 9-11. You can search that.
- Why do Americans claim Osama turned against them because they did not fulfill their promise of leaving his Homeland i.e Saudi Arabia?
- One of your references quote a former Pakistani Intelligence Official, so you should also believe in a retired Pakistani Intelligence Chief who has claimed in his book to have personally seen terror training camps in USA and France that had people of different nationalities of the world getting training in sabotage activities, the kind of activities which are witnessed in those countries whose governments are not liked by USA.
- A documentary on The History Channel showed interviews with those CIA officials who distributed money bags with their own hands amongst contact persons of various groups. These former officials claimed they almost never knew who they were giving money to and always hoping that money reached those hands for which it was intended. How can you and your references be so sure that money only reached those people whom Americans used to call Mujahideen.
- You take pride in saying that USA only helped Mujahideen, as if they were any different from Arab fighters. do you know who those Mujahideen are?
One Mujahideen leader who was the biggest receiver of US aid in money and weapons was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, now Americans say he is the leading terrorist.
- A CIA official recently claimed that CIA has ties with a group called 'jundullah', which he claims is mostly composed of former Al-Qaeda members (as if there is a system of retirement in Al-Qaeda).
This group is involved in terror activities in the eastern province of Pakistan which borders Iran.
This statement is a recent one so it will be easier for you to search.
And now something about Taliban:
- Taliban were formed in Pakistan in 1994. At that time Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister of Pakistan. She was a US ally and more pro-US than any of the previous dictators. Her government's decisions were mostly dependent on IMF which approved financing based on her political and non-political, foreign and internal policies. How come her government enjoyed un-interrupted IMF loans and continued US support despite formation and supervision of Taliban under her handpicked Interior Minister. This whole operation was done not a very secret one.
- That interior Minister was retired General Naseerullah Babar, who had claimed that for every agreement between Taliban and Northern Alliance, a phone call had to be made to an unknown person in USA to a number provided by US embassy for approval or disapproval of that agreement.
- Immediately after the occupation of Afghanistan by Taliban, Americans started to plan a multi-billion dollar pipeline through Afghanistan, they withdrew that plan before 9-11, did they know a change was coming in Afghanistan????
- Taliban had embassies in only three countries, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and one foreign office in USA. How could USA allow a group which they oppose to open an office in their country? Does that not amount to supporting them?
How many facts can you deny? | ibay wrote: |
| Do you think there must exist a Website to prove every truth in the world? If I provide more web addresses than yours which make opposing claims, will you accept it then? |
Actually, I cite references for three specific reasons, none of which have anything to do with inundating readers such as you with web addresses in an attempt to impress.
1. It is proper etiquette to provide references in any written argument. Students receive failing grades if they write arguments without referencing sources. Professionals, whether they are professors, journalists, scientists, etc., may be unable to publish a book, paper, or article without proper documented references or worse, may be sued for failing to cite source material. I know we are far more informal here, but that does not mean etiquette should be completely thrown out the window.
2. Frihost rules require that references be posted. I take the rule a little further than need be perhaps, but I always try to provide sources in any argument that I make. It may not always be cited by APA guidelines, but I do try to remain true to the spirit of citing sources.
3. Courtesty I provide references in my arguments as a courtesy to anyone reading my posts, and most importantly as a sincere courtesy to anyone with whom I am debating, such as yourself. This way a reader can see from where I received my information and judge its value for themselves and even use it against me if they believe there to be legitimate questions about the source (bias, poor academics, etc.) or if they know of contradictory information of the same or better quality.
By making an argument without citing references, as you did in your previous post, you place me or any other reader at a significant disadvantage in an argument.
| ibay wrote: |
| For my part, I am going to put up some simple and well known points. |
Aside from extremely common events and well known facts (e.g. 2+2=4, Christmas is on December 25 every year), I’d beg to differ with anything being “well known.” Certainly nothing related to what we are discussing is “well known,” in my opinion.
| ibay wrote: |
| - So USA never had any direct contact with any Arab group, how did Saudi Arabia manage to train and send 100,000 fighters into an American backed war? |
First of all, where did you get the number 100,000!? From what I have read, the number of Arab fighters never came close to that astronomical figure. I found sources that refer to anywhere from 3,000 (“How ‘Ugly Americans’ Forced Muslims Into a Wrong War,” Amir Taheri, Arab News, 23 October 2004)
to 9,000 (”Robert Fisk talks about Usama bin Ladin,” Robert Fisk, The Nation, 21 September 1998) and they seem to have played a pathetically small role in the war compared to the 250,000 or so Afghan Mujahideen.
Usama bin Laden is quite wealthy, and there were numerous donations from throughout the Arab world, that provided funding for these foreign fighters. As for how they got in – the United States can’t control its southern border. Do you honestly think Afghanistan should have been able to control the rugged Afghan-Pakistani border?
The following article provides some insight perhaps into the cross-border operations: ”Street literature on Usama Bin Laden Part II: the Soviet-Afghan years,” Youssef Aboul-Enein, Infantry Magazine, 01 September 2006
| ibay wrote: |
| Was there an open party going on in Soviet Occupied Afghanistan for anyone to join? |
Like I said, do you honestly think war-torn Afghanistan capable of controlling its rugged borders tightly enough to prevent a few thousand people from getting in?
| ibay wrote: |
| Has Saudi Arabia ever sent help to such an extent to any other country? The fact is that they were just doing an outsourced job for USA. |
Really? I cannot accept that latter statement without a source that clearly demonstrates that the United States encouraged the KSA to fund foreign fighters in Afghanistan.
| ibay wrote: |
| - Why was Osama Bin Laden placed on top ten freedom fighter's list? (as claimed by US officials) |
What list? What U.S. Officials?
| ibay wrote: |
| - As claimed by Osama himself, |
That already casts serious doubt on the accuracy of the next statement in my book. I believe he’s a very smart and savvy man who only says what is profitable for the benefit of propaganda and his geo-political goals. I don’t think he’d tell the truth if it may harm his cause. Nor do I think he’d hesitate to lie if it benefits it. I’d do the same if I was he. | ibay wrote: |
| he was offered a hand of friendship by Americans and he made famous friendship statement which was printed by newspapers all over the world before and after 9-11. You can search that. |
I tried searching for it (Google), but forgive me for I could not find such a statement. I also searched through sites which I frequent, such as Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and al-Bab with no success.
If you have a source, please provide a link.
| ibay wrote: |
| - Why do Americans claim Osama turned against them because they did not fulfill their promise of leaving his Homeland i.e Saudi Arabia? |
Who claims that? I’ve never claimed that and I know of no American who has. And bin Laden never wanted us in Saudi Arabia period. A promise to leave never came into play.
| ibay wrote: |
| - One of your references quote a former Pakistani Intelligence Official, so you should also believe in a retired Pakistani Intelligence Chief who has claimed in his book to have personally seen terror training camps in USA and France that had people of different nationalities of the world getting training in sabotage activities, the kind of activities which are witnessed in those countries whose governments are not liked by USA. |
Why should I trust one person as much as another just because they’re both citizens of the same country? My neighbor is an American. So is Charles Manson. Should I therefore trust Charles Manson as much as my neighbor?
Which book was that? Who was the official? What does he consider a “terror training camp?”(I’m not trying to be a jerk. I’d really like to know.) I’m sure some people (including some of my neighbors down the highway in Berkley) would consider Marine Corps basic training at Paris Island a “terror training camp.” 
I can’t speak to the material which you are referencing. Without knowing the source or what he is talking about, I can’t make a specific argument.
| ibay wrote: |
| - A documentary on The History Channel showed interviews with those CIA officials who distributed money bags with their own hands amongst contact persons of various groups. These former officials claimed they almost never knew who they were giving money to and always hoping that money reached those hands for which it was intended. How can you and your references be so sure that money only reached those people whom Americans used to call Mujahideen. |
One can’t. But given the small amount of foreign fighters compared to indigenous fighters, the odds are in the CIA’s favor even if it was scattered randomly, which it was not. Furthermore, bin Laden spoke of the following in a 1998 interview (emphasis added by me):
| Robert Fisk talks about Usama bin Ladin wrote: |
| Some of his current Afghan fellow fighters had been trained earlier by the CIA in the very camps that were the target of the recent US missiles--but whereas they had been called camps for "freedom fighters" when US agents set them up in the early eighties, now they had become camps for "terrorists." He and his comrades never saw "evidence of American help" in Afghanistan, he told me… |
| ibay wrote: |
- You take pride in saying that USA only helped Mujahideen, as if they were any different from Arab fighters. do you know who those Mujahideen are?
One Mujahideen leader who was the biggest receiver of US aid in money and weapons was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, now Americans say he is the leading terrorist. |
Why do you say I take pride in it? I’m trying to argue without pride or prejudice (as best I can), which is another reason I cite sources. (You can make that number 4.)
Individuals are responsible for their own actions. I even admitted in my previous post that the founding member of the Taliban probably received training and funding from the CIA as he fought for the Afgan Mujahideen. But that does not make the U.S. culpable for his actions after the fact. Is the United States responsible for all of the acts committed by the Soviet Union after 1945 because we helped them defeat Nazi Germany?
| ibay wrote: |
- A CIA official recently claimed that CIA has ties with a group called 'jundullah', which he claims is mostly composed of former Al-Qaeda members (as if there is a system of retirement in Al-Qaeda).
This group is involved in terror activities in the eastern province of Pakistan which borders Iran.
This statement is a recent one so it will be easier for you to search. |
Yes, I’ve heard of and read some of the reports from ABC, which broke the story. Obviously Pakistan and the United States vehemently deny the claims by Brian Ross and Christopher Isham, while Iran embraces it. I found no other sources to move me either way. It is interesting, though. I find it somewhat difficult to believe, but not improbable.
| ibay wrote: |
And now something about Taliban:
- Taliban were formed in Pakistan in 1994. At that time Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister of Pakistan. She was a US ally and more pro-US than any of the previous dictators. Her government's decisions were mostly dependent on IMF which approved financing based on her political and non-political, foreign and internal policies. How come her government enjoyed un-interrupted IMF loans and continued US support despite formation and supervision of Taliban under her handpicked Interior Minister. This whole operation was done not a very secret one. |
For the same reason the USSR received aid from the U.S. during World War II. Her alliance was worth more at the time than the problems she may contribute to in the future. Simple as that. Cost-Benefit-Analysis. Sometimes you’re right. Sometimes you’re wrong. Sometimes it doesn’t matter.
| ibay wrote: |
| - That interior Minister was retired General Naseerullah Babar, who had claimed that for every agreement between Taliban and Northern Alliance, a phone call had to be made to an unknown person in USA to a number provided by US embassy for approval or disapproval of that agreement. |
I’ve heard his claims of U.S. support for the Taliban’s ascension to power, but it doesn’t ring true to me. And I found nothing else to support his claim, quite the contrary. However I could not find the information of which you spoke. This article from the Brookings Institute paints a more realistic, albeit abbreviated, picture of how the Taliban came to power and the significant role Pakistan played. “Pakistan’s Strategic Vision: With and Without the Taliban”
Nonetheless I believe the Clinton administration turned a blind eye to these developments in the hope that they’d bring stability to the region. This only lasted briefly though as the U.S. quickly became a critic of the Taliban and started supporting the Northern Alliance.
| ibay wrote: |
| - Immediately after the occupation of Afghanistan by Taliban, Americans started to plan a multi-billion dollar pipeline through Afghanistan, they withdrew that plan before 9-11, did they know a change was coming in Afghanistan???? |
This is a common “all about oil” conspiracy theory. Therefore I refuse to even debate it. It ranks alongside the conspiracy theory that Roosevelt knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor but allowed it to happen to provide an excuse to enter the war in Europe. Only in this case Bush knew about the impending 9/11 attacks and chose not to act so he might have a reason for conquering Afghanistan and gaining access to the Caspian for Unocal (now part of Chevron).
| ibay wrote: |
| - Taliban had embassies in only three countries, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and one foreign office in USA. How could USA allow a group which they oppose to open an office in their country? Does that not amount to supporting them? |
I am not aware that the Taliban operated a foreign office in the United States and I could not find a source that confirmed it. However the United States never recognized the Taliban government, only the three countries you mentioned did so.
Respectfully,
M
