History 101 The 9/11 Operation Started in Afghanistan and the first casualty was an Afghan.

[grantcart]

None of this is relevent to the discussion on what the President's speech on future US military mission should be in Afghanistan. Some very thoughtful people have raised excellent questions. Others have engaged in all kind of revisionist history. You are entitled to your opinion but not your own set of facts.


The facts are this:


The operation known here as 9/11 actually started on September 9th when two Al Queda operatives successfully engaged in a suicide mission to take out Ahmad Shah Massood, the "Lion of Panjshir". Bin Laden fully expected that the US would take retaliatory action against Al Queda and the Taliban and would seek to strengthen the Northern Alliance.

Two days before the 9/11 attackers boarded their plane two Al Queda operatives successfully posed as journalists and detonated a camera bomb that killed the one man who could unite a broad based campaign agaisnt the Taliban. These operatives not only met with Bin Laden and Al Zawahari but also met with Taliban leader Muhammed Omar.

It was a brilliant strategic move. Senior Taliban leaders have confirmed the details. Al Queda boasts about the brilliance of the attack.

The facts are now well known including the delivery of the camera to the combined Al Queda/Taliban information office in Khandihar. All three parties (Northern Alliance, Taliban, Al Queda) agree on the basic facts. No journalist has ever disputed it.

Only at DU, where history can be re-written to substantiate an ideological point, is the contention made that Afghanistan had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Now the fact that the attacks of 9/11 were one part of the Afghan civil war in 2001 is not an argument for or against any policy in 2010. But the assassinaton of Massood was part of the larger operation that included the attacks on New York in 2001.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-10-afghan-assassination_x.htm

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Oh I remember that

absolutely I remember that.

[Cha]

2. And, they're busy calling

Pres Obama a liar bc of the revisionist history.

I knew he wouldn't lie..for cris sake..he's privy to that information.

Thank you for setting these facts straight, grant.

[EFerrari]

25. grantcart's facts are right but his conclusions are not.

The Taliban can't be shown to have participated in planning 9/11.

And, they offered to hand over bin Ladin to a third party if Bush oould provide any evidence of his involvement:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7133118&mesg_id=7133118

Yes, Obama conflated the Taliban with AQ to sell his escalation just as Bush did to justify his unnecessary invasion of Afghanistan.

[ShortnFiery]

30. Yes, the Taliban have LOCAL interests, whereas al Qaeda is GLOBAL and decentralized.

In essence, Obama is falling into the same trap as Bush and MAKING Afghanistan the central front on the war with al Qaeda ... what's IRONIC is that the main al Qaeda elements been chased back to Pakistan, but we're continuing to TERRORIZE the Afghani people because their Taliban allowed Al Qaeda TO CAMP THERE. :crazy:

[Cha]

34. I'm calling bullshit on your assertions. All I see from you

is Obama bad, chavez good.

So excuse me if I take no validity in anything you have to nag on about President Obama.

[frylock]

37. all i see from you?!

fucking RICH!

[EFerrari]

38. Well, that's a fine basis for analysis.

lol

[boppers]

3. But the two buildings fell upward at the speed of light!

:evilgrin:

[Wilms]

4. Yep. You need caves to plan an attack like 9/11 and the Bush admin provided all the proof I needed.

Blow up the caves and you deprive the terrorists of the very thing they need to learn to fly planes and build bombs. Without those caves, there's no way to wire money to the US or fake out NORAD. Plus, you need the caves to make those slick recruitment videos of kids moving across monkey bars and crawling under barbed wire.

Death to the evil cave dwellers.*





(* = If that all really makes sense to you.)


--on edit--

Masood's assassination was indeed part of 9/11. Is it not possible that he was taken out to prevent him from capturing Bin Laden? Or offering some other notion of what was behind the attacks?

Just askin'.

[jberryhill]

20. They weren't IN caves until AFTER 9/11, putz

Wealthy people with degrees in engineering, like Bin Laden, use caves as bomb shelters - you know - when they are being bombed.

This whole "caveman" thing is as tired, as it is chronologically wrong.

[Wilms]

24. Of course they weren't. Thanks for pointing that out.

Now explain how bombing caves keeps Murkens safe.

And quit the name calling. :eyes:

[leveymg]

5. By the same twisted logic, we should've sent 108,000 US troops to Malaysia, as that's where the 9/11

attacks were actually planned out. The details of the "Planes Operation" were decided at an early January, 2000 al-Qaeda summit meeting convened in a condo off a golf course in Kuala Lumpur. In attendance were a dozen or so of the principle 9/11 hijackers and al-Qaeda leaders, including KSM, Abu Zubaydah, al-Nashiri, Ramzi bin Yusuf and the Flt. 77 hijackers, al-Midhar and al-Hazmi. The NSA had intercepted messages about the meeting, and the CIA tracked the latter two as they traveled to the meeting, videotaping the proceedings and the attendees.

On January 15, 2000, the Flt. 77 hijackers flew into LAX, and a warning cable was drafted at the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center (CIA/CTC), alerting the FBI of their arrival in the U.S. That cable and a subsequent communication to the FBI were withheld, however, at the direct order of CTC Assistant Director, "Rich B" (Richard Blee), presumably at the behest of CTC Director Cofer Black. While that assured that the FBI's National Security Unit in NY -- tasked with tracking al-Qaeda inside the U.S. -- never got the message, Director George Tenet received multiple briefings from Blee and Black about the goings on in Kuala Lumpur and the entry of al-Hazmi and al-Midhar. Tenet briefed President George W. Bush on multiple occasions, including a mid-August surprise trip to Crawford, TX, about multiple al-Qaeda attack cells known to be inside the US planning hijackings and attacks on landmark structures in NY and Washington, DC. But, for some reason that still has yet to be explained, Bush refused to issue the order to unleash the FBI to roll-up the al-Qaeda network.

So, you see, Afghanistan is really not central to the 9/11 attack. If you really wanted to use the military to prevent terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda, we should have invaded Langley, VA and Crawford, TX.

[grantcart]

17. There is no logic twisted or otherwise.

Reread the OP.

It has nothing to do with the policies that are being advocated one way or another, but in the attempt by some to create a revisionist history that is not based on facts.


The strategic headquarters that authorized the attacks were in Afghanistan. They saw it as part of the larger Afghan civil war.

No Malaysians were assassinated 48 hours prior to the attack of 9/11.

[Flaneur]

35. I think you have it backwards.

"They saw it as part of the larger Afghan civil war."

Am I reading you right? Al Qaeda attacked the US on 911 as part of the larger Afghan civil war?

It seems to me Al Qaeda assassinated Mahsoud as part of its larger plan to attack the US, and then fend it off by decapititating its main potential local ally.

[grantcart]

44. AQ's longterm interest is in establishing a multi state Caliphate

In order to do this they intend to start as many civil wars in Islamic countries as they can.

[LittleBlue]

6. People do not understand: we're tired of causing more death and destruction for 9/11

It's not an issue of where this war started, but whether it can and should be ended. We've militarily defeated the Taliban and given the Afghani people the tools to free themselves from their former Taliban rulers.

Nothing we do can make the Afghani people want democracy more. We've already killed enough of them and alienated a sufficient number that they now side with the Taliban. We've done enough, time to call this hopeless war of killing quits.

[grantcart]

16. The issue of this OP has nothing to do with policies after 9/11 or now

It has to do with historical revisionism.


There are many threads at DU asserting that Afghanistan had no part in the 9/11 attacks.


This is not true.

[eridani]

7. Right. Tell us about all the operational flight schools in Afghanistan n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

23. Yeah, I want to know when we're invading Florida

That's where the hijackers learned how to fly their planes. Flight school owned by two CIA tools (Wally Hilliard & Rudi Dekkers) affiliated with the Bush Crime Family, in a state run at the time by one John Ellis Bush (a.k.a. "Jeb")

[EFerrari]

8. That AQ forsaw our ham fisted response doesn't make the Taliban

responsible for 9/11. That's simply wrong.

[geek tragedy]

11. No, the Taliban's illegal sheltering of Al-Qaeda in the

years preceding 911 made them responsible. Of course, some people insist to this day that the Taliban were the victims of US aggression and bad faith actions. Such people cannot be reasoned with.

[EFerrari]

15. That view omits the power and influence of the ISI

and gives too much to the Taliban who were only interested in running their piece of real estate.

[grantcart]

18. So the assassination of Massood was a legal act and happened 48

hours prior to the 9/11 attacks was coincidence.

[EFerrari]

19. Massoud was the Taliban's enemy and competitor.

Why would they have a problem with that? Do you think they'd care when he was taken out as long as it happened? You're conflating the Taliban's local politics with AQ's. They aren't the same.

[grantcart]

21. They think its the same they use it in their propoganda for recruitment

The assassination of Massood wasn't local politics it was an AQ operation that used foreign operatives with imported technology.


Arabs posing as journalists used an advanced engineering to create a bomb inside of a video camera. Besides meeting with the assassins and giving their blessing before the operation it was an AQ operation.

[EFerrari]

22. It was local politics for the Taliban.

[ShortnFiery]

32. "Arabs posing as Journalists ..." You mean they can't be both?

Watch out GC, your PREJUDICE SLIP is begging to show. :evilgrin: By such logic ARABS = al Qaeda = Taliban. What a simplistic vision you have of A-RABS?

I'd suggest that you promptly "tuck it back up" within some well constructed sentences that reflect your admittedly high intelligence ... no worries, only you and I will take note. ;)

[ieoeja]

40. Arabs = foreigners

[ShortnFiery]

43. Sure ... wink wink. eom

[ieoeja]

45. Huh?

Just as some Afghans are anti-government simply because the government is backed by NATO, some Afghans are anti-Taliban because they are backed by Arabs.

[Clio the Leo]

9. Thank you. NT

[R. P. McMurphy]

10. k & r n/t

[Peacetrain]

12. We need to keep a true perspective of where we are and how we got here Thank You K&R

[ieoeja]

13. K&R

The Taliban's leader was working hand-in-hand with his brother-in-law.

[Window]

14. K/R. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

26. Cool! So let me get this logic: We continue to run the terrorist training camp school, the SOA

at Fort Benning, so I guess we are going to have to declare "WAR" with Columbus, Georgia ? ... and then continuously bomb the shit out of them ? ... not unlike we're continuing to PUNISH the Afghani people who had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11?

Total Bullshit!

[Ysabela]

27. WTC Building 7. I rest my case.

[HughMoran]

28. .

:crazy:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

29. Yes, the 9/11 - Afghanistan nexus is clear

It has a lot of nuances, but the taliban harboring AQ did facilitate 9/11.

[ShortnFiery]

31. Then I guess we're going to have to bomb ourselves because al Qaeda is decentralized

and has cells all over the world.

Let me see? Didn't we pick up cells in New York? or St. Louis? or Miami? When are we going to BOMB those cities because they were HARBORING TERRORISTS?

INSANE LOGIC to continue to punish the people of Afghanistan for running a hotel ... people who will NOT EVER let al Qaeda again get a foothold if we leave now. :crazy:

[Name removed]

33. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

39. By the same logic, we need to invade Germany, Saidi Arabia and Yemen.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

46. I was addressing the OP's speciffic point

There has been a lot of "Afghanistan didn't attack us!" stuff which is over-done.

No nation attacked us, but the then government of Afghanistan played a greater facilitating role than any other national government as a matter of overt government policy.

Even before 9/11 they were hosting an organization that had bombed a US warship and several US embassies.

I understand the point that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were complicit, through inaction if nothing else. But that doesn't mean that deposing the taliban was wrong.

Since the taliban was deposed as the official government almost immediately that doesn't answer questions about subsequent policy. It just is what it is.

[AllentownJake]

36. I respect you and I will post my simple view on war

If this group was really a threat, why 30,000? Seems to be we are under acting to such a strategic threat to America. Where is the draft? Where are the War Bonds? Where are the ration coupons?

Where is the sacrifice being called upon by all Americans. Why are we doing one year rotation, if our very survival was dependent on destroying this threat, why aren't we fighting till they either surrender or no longer exist.

[grantcart]

42. all good questions but this thread is narrowly focused on the revisionism

of history that is rampant at DU.

There are perfectly good reasons to be against Obama's Afghanistan policy but it doesn't require people to conduct a fanciful revision of history, and call Obama a liar.


The Democrats should make the top 1% of the country that is deriving the maximum benefit and contributing nothing to pay for all of this war and for the debt from Iraq as well.

[Cha]

41. KIck.