Over 90,000 US Military Records Leaked

[Baff1 0]

Be that as it may, your overall impression of events is skewed.

Mine also comes not only from numerous accredited reporters and a top ranking Taliban official at the U.N., but my own personal experience.

I not only read about it, but I was able to corroborate what I read with the events that were taking place in my life at the time of reading.

To you perhaps it's all just a story. To me it's something more.

I would like to go as far as to say that the stories you have provided me are not necessarily invalidated or undermined by my own, only the conclusions you have attached to them.

I feel provoked enough to comment on the value of your own experiences on this subject. I feel the close personal bias, and inherant national political bias (which I share) you have on this subject goes some way to discredit your opinion and also your choice in sources.

While your opinions give me valuable and much appreciated insights into how people in your position might feel, they aren't doing so much to give me an impartial overview of actual events. Just a rehash of the usual old propaganda I would expect.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Baff1

[Big Mac 19]

Mine also comes not only from numerous accredited reporters and top ranking Taliban officials at the U.N., but my own personal experience.

I not only read about it, but I was able to corroborate what I read with the events that were taking place in my life at the time of reading.

To you perhaps it's all just a story. To me it's something more.

Have you been to Afghanistan? If not then you haven't experienced anything...

[Baff1 0]

I have experienced the effects of the Afghan opium trade from my own country.

Afghanistan is the primary source of opium here.

It is to this which I am refering. Clearly this is something I would be unable to experience firsthand from Afghanistan, while still being pertinent to the subject under discussion.

Perhaps you feel the the victims of 9/11 have no relavent experiences to offer on the subject of Afghanistan also, since they have never been there either? Or perhaps like me you feel that they have lived through something that might have corroborated the stories and articles they read on the subject at the time.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Baff1

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Perhaps you feel the the victims of 9/11 have no relavent experiences to offer on the subject of Afghanistan also, since they have never been there either?

Actually they don't. If they had no experiences regarding Afghanistan before 9/11, they would not have any afterwards. Because it happened in NEW YORK. They can have "experiences" relating to terrorist attacks, and death and destruction, but victims of 9/11 did not have an "Afghanistan" experience that day.

[Baff1 0]

Actually they do.

If someone was to say "in the year 2001 Afghanistan was exporting a lot of terrorism to America"

A survivor of 9/11 would be able to judge the validity of that statement against their own personal experience.

His experience would be directly relavent to issues being discussed about Afghanistan.

A person who has never heard of 9/11 on the otherhand, would only have the initial statement to go on.

No ready method of applying common sense to the opinion. He would not be in such a strong position to judge either the factuality or error of said statement.

His inexperience would leave his judgement wholly reliant on the opinion of others.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Baff1

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

Sorry but I don't see a direct relation between 9/11 and Afghanistan here. The terrorists weren't from Afghanistan and I've a problem that a whole country should be held responsible because some few people provided shelter for the leader of Al-Qaeda (proof is actually still missing by the way). We know that things work diffrent down there. There are unwritten rules which simply don't allow the extradition of a guest no matter what he has done. We can discuss how we've similar laws which don't allow the extradition of lets say war criminals (f.e. US soldiers wanted by Spain) or child abusers (like Polanski). Fact is there are other countries which are much more related or even responsible for terrorism. Why didn't the USA attacked these too or even first? Oh, I forgot they're your so called allies.

About the drugs I just can say does somebody here really believe it's possible to ship thousands of truck loads of opium around the globe without the knowledge of intelligence agencies and governments? Stop dreaming! I suggest you read a book written by Alfred W. McCoy called "The Politics of Heroin. CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade".

Have a nice day...and open up your mind!

[Baff1 0]

I believe that it is perfectly possible yes, having met plenty of enforcement agents and government officials I am only surprised it doesn't happen more often.

I would agree that I also do not feel there has been a direct connection with Afghanistan and 9/11 made anymore than there has been one with Iraq and 9/11. Perhaps I chose a bad example to illustrate my point.

That said I am far happier that they chose to bomb Afghanistan over Hamburg or Saudi Arabia. Someone was going to get it, might as well be someone none of us care about.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Baff1

[Hoaah 10]

I wish for Christmas that the U.S. stops playing policeman in the world.

They have been playing the world at least since WW2. In my opinion that country is more dangerous than Iraq. In every war there is on the world there is at least one American involved.

I might maybe better watch my words, but everyone in here knows it is the truth. We even learn it at school.

But on the other side I would be proud to be an American. Everything you need is there.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Hoaah

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I wish for Christmas that the U.S. stops playing policeman in the world.

They have been playing the world at least since WW2. In my opinion that country is more dangerous than Iraq. In every war there is on the world there is at least one American involved.

I might maybe better watch my words, but everyone in here knows it is the truth. We even learn it at school.

But on the other side I would be proud to be an American. Everything you need is there.

Someone has to do it, Hoaah; if not the British, then the 'mericans. The USA is the 3rd (-nth) Rome of today, whether someones likes it or not. It will cease function as all Empires do, but for the time being that is how things are, only thing you can hope for is a speedy 'recovery'. :D The Republic is long gone.

[HyperU2 11]

We get criticized for not intervening as often as for our interventions. I'd rather try and make a difference.

[Big Mac 19]

We get criticized for not intervening as often as for our interventions. I'd rather try and make a difference.

For once I agree with HyperU2. It's better to intervene and try to make a difference rather than sit on the sidelines saying "They're not hurting our people so why should we bother?"

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

But you've to admit that the choosen locations for interventions are a little strange. There are surely more rotten places on this planet then Iraq or Afghanistan. I can't aware the feeling that it's maybe because these others aren't so interesting on the economical side or simply because they're maybe a little "too tall" for the USA?

[Big Mac 19]

Afghanistan was not for economical reasons nor was Iraq. Kuwait was however, but everyone supported us on that. I personally believe the US should get more involved in Africa, but ever since somaila we've been reluctant to commit troops to any peacekeeping operations there.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Big Mac

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

If not for economical reasons (oil) why Iraq? It surely wasn't for WMDs or the democratisation of the country. Same goes for Afghanistan (google "Unocal TAP"). Besides that how many military contracts got pushed through because of these wars. Economical interests at it's best or better worst!

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Sorry but I don't see a direct relation between 9/11 and Afghanistan here. The terrorists weren't from Afghanistan and I've a problem that a whole country should be held responsible because some few people provided shelter for the leader of Al-Qaeda (proof is actually still missing by the way).

Are you serious?

Jesus. People will believe anything. There is more than enough proof for any reasonable person that Bin Laden and his people were living under the official protection of the Taliban, an entity that controlled 90% of Afghanistan. I would not call that "some few people". Additionally, your post indicates that you believe we are still in Afghanistan to "punish" or hold the Afghans responsible which immediately tells me a lot about your exposure to the issue.

About the drugs I just can say does somebody here really believe it's possible to ship thousands of truck loads of opium around the globe without the knowledge of intelligence agencies and governments? Stop dreaming! I suggest you read a book written by Alfred W. McCoy called "The Politics of Heroin. CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade".

I don't think anyone said that intelligence agencies and governments didn't know about it. The CIA turned a blind eye to it in the 80s and the DEA's efforts in Pakistan were hindered in the 90s. Additionally, Pakistan, Iran, and the Central Asian Republics reported the trafficking of drugs and even grabbed a few drug convoys when international pressure was hot enough.

Honestly, everyone knew about it. Everyone and no one gave a shit. What's your point?

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

You've massive understanding problems! With a "few people" I meant the Taliban and tribal leaders or do you think that the normal Afghans knew or were interested in who Bin Laden was and what he was doing. You sound like you belive that 90% population were directly involved in his sheltering. I'm quite sure he was there but it seems he wasn't anymore as you started the invasion or why didn't you caught him so far? I don't know how you can make up this "punish" comment from what I wrote but it just underlines that you understand nothing or not much of what I wrote and write.

Btw, the CIA is in to traficking drugs since Vietnam.

[Big Mac 19]

If not for economical reasons (oil) why Iraq? It surely wasn't for WMDs or the democratisation of the country. Same goes for Afghanistan (google "Unocal TAP"). Besides that how many military contracts got pushed through because of these wars. Economical interests at it's best or better worst!

The reason we went into Iraq had to do with a false connections to nukes and the 911 attacks. It had nothing to do with oil. Afghanistan happened because the taliban were harboring the leadership of AQ and because they were bad dudes in their own right.

Also a number of military contracts were canceled when if we weren't at war would have bared fruit. You seriously need to do some massive amounts of research before you cast judgment on another country's foreign policy.

---------- Post added at 09:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 PM ----------

You've massive understanding problems! With a "few people" I meant the Taliban and tribal leaders or do you think that the normal Afghans knew or were interested in who Bin Laden was and what he was doing. You sound like you belive that 90% population were directly involved in his sheltering. I'm quite sure he was there but it seems he wasn't anymore as you started the invasion or why didn't you caught him so far? I don't know how you can make up this "punish" comment from what I wrote but it just underlines that you understand nothing or not much of what I wrote and write.

We aren't punishing the entire population because of AQ and the Taliban, we're just making sure Ghanny can't be used as a terrorist haven again. Besides the vast majority of the afghan population hated the taliban. We havent caught him so far because the two times we had him in our sights we relied on local warlords who were bribed and because now he's in pakistan where ISAF troops can't cross into. Maybe we should invade pakistan too eh?

Btw, the CIA is in to traficking drugs since Vietnam.

Your point is? I have no love for the CIA nor do many Americans.. Edited August 10, 2010 by Big Mac

[HyperU2 11]

For once I agree with HyperU2. It's better to intervene and try to make a difference rather than sit on the sidelines saying "They're not hurting our people so why should we bother?"

I meant to post that I agreed with you for a change somewhere the other day but I forget where now. :) I'm drunk so I'll sort things out later.

It's not totally inaccurate to say we went into Iraq for oil, or during Desert Storm. Securing oil does protect the American way of life, at least until something better comes along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

The reason we went into Iraq had to do with a false connections to nukes and the 911 attacks. It had nothing to do with oil. Afghanistan happened because the taliban were harboring the leadership of AQ and because they were bad dudes in their own right.

That's what they want you to believe. Infact it was to secure the resources and nothing else.

Also a number of military contracts were canceled when if we weren't at war would have bared fruit. You seriously need to do some massive amounts of research before you cast judgment on another country's foreign policy.

And much more got through because of the war. Not to talk about all the related "contractor" contracts that wouldn't have been signed if the wars wouldn't have taken place. Don't tell me I should do research if you're the person that knows nothing about what we're talking here.

Your point is? I have no love for the CIA nor do many Americans..

Some people here started to claim that the war against drugs is also a relevant part and I just show you that your very own institutions are involved in this stuff. Maybe you should clean your own front yard before you go to the next village and tell the people there that their yards are dirty.

[Big Mac 19]

That's what they want you to believe. Infact it was to secure the resources and nothing else.

Ha ok and I bet you don't believe that Neil Armstrong really landed on the moon either?

And much more got through because of the war. Not to talk about all the related "contractor" contracts that wouldn't have been signed if the wars wouldn't have taken place. Don't tell me I should do research if you're the person that knows nothing about what we're talking here.

Well the reason I'm telling you to do your research is because you don't know what you're talking about. If you're trying to imply that all of the PMCs would be out of work if we hadn't gone to war you're seriously mistaken. There are always wars to be fought, corporations who need their foreign interests protected, etc. etc. PMCs are not a new thing infact next to whoring and spying being a mercenary is one the oldest professions. It's only since the 1980s that they've become more corporate like, instead of a group of veterans looking for a new war.

Some people here started to claim that the war against drugs is also a relevant part and I just show you that your very own institutions are involved in this stuff. Maybe you should clean your own front yard before you go to the next village and tell the people there that their yards are dirty.

So would you say that your government is squeaky clean now eh? My government is no more corrupt than yours and your people are no better than mine. Every country has it's bad apples, it's section of history it would rather forget, and it's own sins it's trying to wash away.

You haven't shown me or anyone that the CIA has been involved in the trafficking of narcotics. That doesn't mean it isn't true, but you haven't shown any proof. The CIA has it's uses and that's why it hasn't been disbanded. Also anyone who knows anything about government knows that various agencies sometimes undermine each other for their own interests. I believe the War on Drugs is an utter failure and will continue to be because where there is a demand there always will be a supply, but the ARNG has been working with Afghan farmers to teach them to plant crops other than opium and has had some success.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Big Mac

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

Ha ok and I bet you don't believe that Neil Armstrong really landed on the moon either?

What a dumb comparison!

Well the reason I'm telling you to do your research is because you don't know what you're talking about. If you're trying to imply that all of the PMCs would be out of work if we hadn't gone to war you're seriously mistaken. There are always wars to be fought, corporations who need their foreign interests protected, etc. etc. PMCs are not a new thing infact they've been around since the end of WW2. It's only since the 1980s that they've become more corporate like, instead of a group of veterans looking for a new war.

I'm not only talking about mercenaries but also logistics and so on. Back to the point. Do you think that so much ordonance, that so many MRAPs, UAVs and what else not would have been bought without these wars?

So would you say that your government is squeaky clean now eh? My government is no more corrupt than yours and your people are no better than mine. Every country has it's bad apples, it's section of history it would rather forget, and it's own sins. The CIA has it's uses and that's why it hasn't been disbanded. Also anyone who knows anything about government knows that various agencies sometimes undermine each other for their own interests.

At least I'm quite sure that our intelligence agency wasn't and isn't involved in the drug business.

[Big Mac 19]

What a dumb comparison!

It wasn't a comparison, I was implying that you run around with a tin foil cap on your head.

I'm not only talking about mercenaries but also logistics and so on. Back to the point. Do you think that so much ordnance, that so many MRAPs, UAVs and what else not would have been bought without these wars?

Sure they would. UAVs are not a new thing either. They've been around the 1960s as are a lot of the ordinance that has been used. The only new thing is the MRAPs which the concept isn't new either. The US military has been looking for a new all purpose light vehicle to replace the Humvee for awhile. The MRAPs themselves are actually based off the South African Casspir which has been around since the 1980s, we've just taken the concept and modernized it. There will always be a market for new weapons, war or no war.

At least I'm quite sure that our intelligence agency wasn't and isn't involved in the drug business.

And you haven't proven that the CIA has been either. I personally wouldn't put it past the CIA to dip their wicks into the drug trafficking business, but it still hasn't been proven and probably never will. Also the BND and MAD has had a few scandals. Not on par with what you're accusing the CIA of, just spying on journalists and going on homosexual witch hunts within the Bundeswehr, but still some black marks on it's record. No intelligence agency is squeaky clean. Edited August 10, 2010 by Big Mac

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

It wasn't a comparison, I was implying that you run around with a tin foil cap on your head.

Yeah, jump on the tin foil bandwagon if you run out of arguments.

Sure they would. UAVs are not a new thing either. They've been around the 1960s as are a lot of the ordinance that has been used. The only new thing is the MRAPs which the concept isn't new either. The US military has been looking for a new all purpose light vehicle to replace the Humvee for awhile. The MRAPs themselves are actually based off the South African Casspir which has been around since the 1980s, we've just taken the concept and modernized it. There will always be a market for new weapons, war or no war.

For sure they wouldn't have even bought half of that stuff.

No IED threats = no MRAPs needed

No stuff to bomb = no new ordonance

No need to fly and spy = no UAVs

And you haven't proven that the CIA has been either. I personally wouldn't put it past the CIA to dip their wicks into the drug trafficking business, but it still hasn't been proven and probably never will. Also the BND and MAD has had a few scandals. Not on par with what you're accusing the CIA of, just spying on journalists and going on homosexual witch hunts within the Bundeswehr, but still some black marks on it's record. No intelligence agency is squeaky clean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking

[Baff1 0]

Iraq is about oil.

As long as Saddam was in power he was a threat to our oil intrests in Kuwait and Saudi.

Our forces had already fought one war against him because of it and had been deployed there for over a decade because of it.

It's just about oil. Plain and simple. All the rest is window dressing.

The problem with going after the leadership of AQ in Afghanistan is that there is no particular link to them and 9/11 anymore than there was one to Saddam and 9/11.

Bush said Bin Laden did it, and that was enough for everyone. It's not like Bin Laden had any friends.

It smacks of scapegoating.

The real problem for America's leadership after 9/11 is that there wasn't anyone to hit back at. The people who did it all died in the plane. They were impotent.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Baff1

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

You've massive understanding problems! With a "few people" I meant the Taliban and tribal leaders or do you think that the normal Afghans knew or were interested in who Bin Laden was and what he was doing. You sound like you belive that 90% population were directly involved in his sheltering. I'm quite sure he was there but it seems he wasn't anymore as you started the invasion or why didn't you caught him so far? I don't know how you can make up this "punish" comment from what I wrote but it just underlines that you understand nothing or not much of what I wrote and write.

Btw, the CIA is in to traficking drugs since Vietnam.

I understand English isn't your first language so I'm going to do this as simply as possible. Try to follow along, okay?

You've massive understanding problems! With a "few people" I meant the Taliban and tribal leaders or do you think that the normal Afghans knew or were interested in who Bin Laden was and what he was doing.

The Taliban controlled 90% of the country. For all intents and purposes, they were the government of Afghanistan. Tribal leaders, in all Taliban controlled regions, were marginalized or outright replaced by Taliban appointed governors and ministers.

I didn't say a single word about "normal Afghans" and it is irrelevant since we are not fighting, or at war with, "normal Afghans".

I don't understand your point here, honestly.

I'm quite sure he was there but it seems he wasn't anymore as you started the invasion or why didn't you caught him so far?

I understand you don't know anything about intelligence or military operations, so again, I will do this a simply as possible.

Afghanistan is a big country

We did not control the borders

We fucked up the many attempts to get him (pre and Post 9/11)

We relied too much on the overhyped Mujh fighter to get him

The guy is no longer in Afghanistan. This is a known fact and has been known for some time. Mossad thinks he is in Iran, our guys think he is in NWFP.

I don't know how you can make up this "punish" comment from what I wrote but it just underlines that you understand nothing or not much of what I wrote and write.

You said that we are holding them responsible, which is another way of saying we are punishing them. Again, I understand that English isn't your first language, but that is what you said. If you meant something different, then please say what you meant.

Btw, the CIA is in to traficking drugs since Vietnam.

So? What's your point?

---------- Post added at 02:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:48 PM ----------

The problem with going after the leadership of AQ in Afghanistan is that there is no particular link to them and 9/11 anymore than there was one to Saddam and 9/11.

Bush said Bin Laden did it, and that was enough for everyone. It's not like Bin Laden had any friends.

It smacks of scapegoating.

The real problem for America's leadership after 9/11 is that there wasn't anyone to hit back at. The people who did it all died in the plane. They were impotent.

Come on are you serious?