PDA

View Full Version : 2 Allies Aided Bin Laden, Say Panel Members



ursamajor
20 Jun 04,, 14:59
9/11 Commission members say Pakistanis and Saudis were upto their eyeballs with BinLaden/AlQaeda/Taleban.

That is why I have such a hard time understanding why President Bush such an intimate relationship with the Saudi royals and declared Pakistan the most favored non-NATO ally and also given billions of dollers.

Here is some excerpts from LATimes article, read the full article if you want.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-alqaeda20jun20,1,440629.story?coll=la-home-headlines

WASHINGTON Pakistan and Saudi Arabia helped set the stage for the Sept. 11 attacks by cutting deals with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden that allowed his Al Qaeda terrorist network to flourish, according to several senior members of the Sept. 11 commission and U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The financial aid to the Taliban and other assistance by two of the most important allies of the United States in its war on terrorism date at least to 1996, and appear to have shielded them from Al Qaeda attacks within their own borders until long after the 2001 strikes, those commission members and officials said in interviews...

...Pakistanis, meanwhile, were in with the Taliban and Al Qaeda "up to their eyeballs," said the senior commission staff member.

He said Bin Laden, for instance, negotiated his 1996 move to Afghanistan with Pakistan's powerful military-intelligence leadership, which held considerable influence over the various warlords struggling for control of Afghanistan at the time.

"He wouldn't go back there without Pakistan's approval and support, and had to comply with their rules and regulations," the official said. He said Pakistan opened its airspace to Bin Laden and his flying flotilla of operatives.

Pakistani intelligence officers also allegedly brought Bin Laden to meet Mullah Omar soon after his arrival in Afghanistan, and then helped forge an alliance between the men that enabled the Taliban to trample competing factions and take over much of Afghanistan.

Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, also was instrumental in helping Al Qaeda set up an infrastructure in its own country and in Afghanistan, and the two outfits jointly operated training camps along the border where militants were taught guerrilla warfare, the official said.

"It started day one," the official said of Pakistan's involvement. "They controlled the Taliban; they controlled the border." ...

Confed999
20 Jun 04,, 16:08
Old news, but what I find amazing is how far they've come since then. I would never have thought either would even pretend to run an active campaign against terrorism. Some groups are willing to reform, at least a little, and others, like Saddam, are unwilling and must be forced. I suppose the US could have invaded them, that is what you're proposing correct, but it doesn't look as if that would have been needed.

visioninthedark
20 Jun 04,, 18:12
Lemme give you another point of view ....

Bin laden was the CIA's gift to Pakistan for it UNFLIBCHING support against the soviets in Afghanistan .... Pakistan COULD NOT HANDLE bin Laden alone ..... and before 9/11 no one took him anywhere near seriously ....

so what could Pakistan do .... try and fight this savage arab and hiss 22000 CIA trained barbarians all alone .... and let him wreak havoc and let loose the fires of hell upon Pakistan with his terror and beheadings .... while the world would have looked on passively and declared it an internal Pakistan problem .....

and certain other countries would have take advantage of the instability generated ....


so Pakistan did what it could to MANAGE the crisis .... while the world ignored us .....


then came 9/11 .... and the west woke up and now ..... thank god ... we can get rid of this unwanted GIFT that the CIA landed us ....


the USA brought this sick barbarian and his cult followers to Pakistan and Paksiatn would NEVER have been able to control him ALONE ... thanks to the short-sighted US policies in Afghanistan ....


now .... at long last .... atleast we have a hope to rid our area of this cancerour tumor ....

THANK YOU USA ... !!!

get the picture ... ????

Ray
20 Jun 04,, 19:23
Bin Laden a gift of the USA?

I am not too sure. What was his contribution to the movement against USSR in Afghanistan? Money maybe, but was he there? I wonder. I will go back and read some more.

visioninthedark
20 Jun 04,, 19:44
Bin Laden a gift of the USA?

I am not too sure. What was his contribution to the movement against USSR in Afghanistan? Money maybe, but was he there? I wonder. I will go back and read some more.

Well Sir ... with all due respect .... would you kindly be kind enough to "be sure" before you start pounding away at the keyboard ....

ursamajor
20 Jun 04,, 22:56
Old news, but what I find amazing is how far they've come since then. I would never have thought either would even pretend to run an active campaign against terrorism. Some groups are willing to reform, at least a little, and others, like Saddam, are unwilling and must be forced. I suppose the US could have invaded them, that is what you're proposing correct, but it doesn't look as if that would have been needed.


The point you are missing is that Saddam was not in the Taleban/AlQaeda loop which resulted in 9/11, Pakistan and Saudis were!
In fact of you read the article above they were upto their eyeballs with Taleban/AlQaeda.

That is why apart from raid on Afghanistan, President Bush approach to war on terror has been at best baffling, actually somewhat of a joke.
Pakistan has been given the most favored non-NATO allies status along with billions of dollers, and Saudi royals are sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom at whitehouse or at Bush's ranch in Texas.

Leader
21 Jun 04,, 00:35
The point you are missing is that Saddam was not in the Taleban/AlQaeda loop which resulted in 9/11, Pakistan and Saudis were!
In fact of you read the article above they were upto their eyeballs with Taleban/AlQaeda.

That is why apart from raid on Afghanistan, President Bush approach to war on terror has been at best baffling, actually somewhat of a joke.
Pakistan has been given the most favored non-NATO allies status along with billions of dollers, and Saudi royals are sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom at whitehouse or at Bush's ranch in Texas.

So if your scenario is correct, what should we do? Invade SA or Pakistan?

Confed999
21 Jun 04,, 02:45
The point you are missing
I haven't missed your point, I allready knew it, thus the "old news" part. This info was released long ago, just because the 9/11 Comission re-released it doesn't make it new.

In fact of you read the article above they were upto their eyeballs with Taleban/AlQaeda.
Like I said, "old news".

That is why apart from raid on Afghanistan, President Bush approach to war on terror has been at best baffling, actually somewhat of a joke.
What part don't you understand, it isn't like the strategy is difficult to grasp?

Pakistan has been given the most favored non-NATO allies status along with billions of dollers, and Saudi royals are sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom at whitehouse or at Bush's ranch in Texas.
Now you liberals want invasion instead of diplomacy? Even if that were a plan how would one go about doing it legaly? The invasions of Afhanistan and Iraq were legal, but I don't see how Saudi Arabia or Pakistan would be. Do those things no longer matter to liberals? Aren't you advocating the candidate that would like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations?

visioninthedark
21 Jun 04,, 09:05
ursamajor ....

hope you read my posts ....

besides ... we havn't been given billions of anything .... hell .... we havn't even been given those F-16 we PAID FOR ....