There was a Conspiracy to mislead US citizens into war with Afghanistan and Iraq

Again, you're completely failing to establish (much less argue with supporting evidence) a logical chain here.

How, exactly, does the US now wanting to keep Tehran from benefiting from a regional pipeline that is already partially complete mean that the US lied about the reasons they invaded Afghanistan more than a decade before and really invaded because of a different pipeline that still hasn't even started construction yet?
 
ConspiracyKiller said:
If the US is not interested in the pipeline, (for humanitarian reasons etc.), then why are tensions escalating between China, Russia, Iran and the US regarding the pipelines?
Click to expand...

They aren't.

China, Russia and Iran don't give a flying @#$% about your stupid pipeline anymore than the US does.
 
ANTPogo said:
Again, you're completely failing to establish (much less argue with supporting evidence) a logical chain here.

How, exactly, does the US now wanting to keep Tehran from benefiting from a regional pipeline that is already partially complete mean that the US lied about the reasons they invaded Afghanistan more than a decade before and really invaded because of a different pipeline that still hasn't even started construction yet?
Click to expand...

The US invasion and occupation has failed to create the conditions needed for the construction of a pipeline through Afghanistan.


'Russia, China, Iran defeat U.S. in the “pipeline wars”

While the West kills thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan and ravages both countries, Russia, China and Iran are acquiring the crucial energy riches of Central Asia and the Caspian area without firing a shot.'
 
Last edited:
What's really funny about all this, is that the US is capable of faking historys biggest terrorist attack and moving armies around the globe conquering far flung nations at will to build a stupid pipeline that they will not benefit from while at the same time, they can't conspire to build a pipeline in their own back yard *cough*KeystoneXL*cough*.
 
JihadJane said:
The US invasion and occupation has failed to create the conditions needed for the construction of a pipeline through Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

You kind of have to establish that this was the reason for the invasion in the first place before you get to assert that they failed in this supposedly primary objective in that invasion.
 
ANTPogo said:
You kind of have to establish that this was the reason for the invasion in the first place before you get to assert that they failed in this supposedly primary objective in that invasion.
Click to expand...

How do you suggest we do that?

Your post appears to assume that the US is free to pursue whatever its original aims were.

Securing a pipeline route appears to have been one element of a much bigger objective to secure Western corporate access to the whole region's energy resources and to block global competitors' access as well as, for example, encircling Russia with military bases. Similarly the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is just one element of a larger regional objective to militarily and politically dominate the entire region. It cannot be considered in isolation.

'The Chess Game Continues in Afghanistan'
 
Last edited:
I'm still waiting for actual evidence the war was about this phantom pipeline.

You know something like a memo from the Bush White House saying:

We sure are totally not going to destroy Al Qaeda and totally only help build this pipeline. LOL
​
You know, some actual evidence.
 
CK posted

"So if it was a failed nation why has the US been defeated and embarrassed so thoroughly by a few nutjobs who are out gunned and out numbered and who have to rely on outdated equipment?"

I'll ask this again:

PS - any details for your "defeat and embarrasment" assertion? The talis have the ability to attack at a place of their choice, but do not even begin to have the ability to force U.S./ NATO forces to withdraw or face annihilation, which the talis are absolutely subject to on their recieving end - they know that if they stand and fight, they die. Case closed. That's why their only option is to run the Afghan version of coin warfare.
 
Reactor drone said:
So why, if the TAPI pipeline was a main objective, did they waste so much time and manpower invading Iraq when they could have just thrown all that effort into Afghanistan and accomplished their goals?
Click to expand...

You have asked the only question that has not been answered in a previous post and I think it is good question. Thank you.

This was the kind of stuff I originally thought was going to be discussed rather that the fingers in ears going lalalala no pipeline plans exists lalalala no pipeline plans exists......on and on and on.

First we have to except that what ever one thinks the goal in Afghanistan was, be it to get OBL or oust the Taliban etc, the US obviously did not complete their mission before invading Iraq.

Was it because the US thought its mission was not that important and didn't care if the Afghan war/mission was lost or was it that the US was so confident in its ability to succeed in its mission that the US assumed there was no threat in putting Afghanistan on hold with a small US force while it fought another war in Iraq?

Or did the war in Iraq actually help to further achieve the U.S. geo-political goal in Afghanistan by encircling Iran from both the East and West so that the increased influence of the US in that region can help to choke off Iran and end its plans for the IPI pipe line while also ending Russia's monopoly of on its pipelines supplying gas to US NATO allies as the US drives Pakistan away from the IPI by threatening sections on the IPI pipeline and giving billions to Pakistan?

Of course what ever the reason for abandoning Afghanistan to go fight another war in Iraq at least every one here can agree that the US completely failed to achieve its goals/mission in Afghanistan and therefore have wasted both blood and treasure with nothing to show for it.
 
ConspiracyKiller said:
I do believe that the Gulf of Tonkin incident which was false as now admitted by the US government was used to gain the peoples support for war in Vietnam.
Click to expand...


The incident was not "false". The USS Maddox and four US Navy aircraft engaged three North Vietnamese torpedo boats on August 2, 1964. The North Vietnamese acknowledged that this engagement occurred.
 
BStrong said:
CK posted

"So if it was a failed nation why has the US been defeated and embarrassed so thoroughly by a few nutjobs who are out gunned and out numbered and who have to rely on outdated equipment?"

I'll ask this again:

PS - any details for your "defeat and embarrasment" assertion? The talis have the ability to attack at a place of their choice, but do not even begin to have the ability to force U.S./ NATO forces to withdraw or face annihilation, which the talis are absolutely subject to on their recieving end - they know that if they stand and fight, they die. Case closed. That's why their only option is to run the Afghan version of coin warfare.
Click to expand...

Since you refuse to believe the NATO reports and the pentagon reports I linked for you will you at least believe the President of the US or are you also going to insist he, like the generals in the reports I linked to, does not know what he is talking about and what he says does not effect the war or foreign policy?

“President Obama’s thinking about what he once called “a war of necessity” began to radically change less than a year after he took up residency in the White House….Mr. Obama concluded in his first year that the Bush-era dream of remaking Afghanistan was a fantasy,…. Mr. Obama began to question why Americans were dying to prop up a leader, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who was volatile, unreliable and willing to manipulate the ballot box. Faced with an economic crisis at home and a fiscal crisis that Mr. Obama knew would eventually require deep limits on Pentagon spending, he was also shocked, they said, by what the war’s cost would be if the generals’ counterinsurgency plan were left on autopilot — $1 trillion over 10 years. And the more he delved into what it would take to truly change Afghan society, the more he concluded that the task was so overwhelming that it would make little difference whether a large American and NATO force remained for 2 more years, 5 more years or 10 more years.” https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/u...pagewanted=all
 
ConspiracyKiller said:
Had the Taliban government not asked for evidence like all other governments do before extraditing someone, the Afghan people would have turned on them instead of supported them. Especially when OBL kept insisting he had nothing to do with 9/11.
Click to expand...


Bin Laden was already under indictment for the US Embassy bombings in Africa in 1998, and he was on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list. There was no need for the US to provide any evidence that he was involved in the September 11 attacks.
 
ConspiracyKiller said:
The first incident was justified warning in response to the US intentionally violating their water space and the second which was supposed to have happened in international waters, (Justifying a military response), did not happen at all.
Click to expand...


No. At the time the limit of territorial waters was accepted in international law as 3 miles. The 12-mile limit was not adopted until 1982. The Maddox was in international waters when attacked by North Vietnam, whether you (or the North Vietnamese) like it or not.
 
Travis said:
I'm still waiting for actual evidence the war was about this phantom pipeline.

You know something like a memo from the Bush White House saying:

We sure are totally not going to destroy Al Qaeda and totally only help build this pipeline. LOL
​
You know, some actual evidence.
Click to expand...

Oh yea I see like a memo saying that we, (the Bush administration), are going to tell everyone that we believe Iraq is aiding and abetting Al Queda including training camps and etc, so the US must invade before Iraq/Al Queda attacks the US with WMD's even though we have several intelligence reports saying that Saddam's secular government is actually enemies with Al Queda and that their are no WMD's and absolutely no operational ties with Al Queda especially after Saddam called OBL a CIA asset and OBL called Saddam an infidel who used to be a US puppet.

Yet thankfully the majority of people in the US and the world know that the US citizens were lied into war with Iraq. Though there are still the rare fanatics who cannot except the evidence unless Bush were to admit it himself.
 
Politicians, even presidents do lie, at time even often... But they aren't the only ones on earth that lie. People on the internet peddling their BS, desperate that everyone believe them, they also lie.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Bin Laden was already under indictment for the US Embassy bombings in Africa in 1998, and he was on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list. There was no need for the US to provide any evidence that he was involved in the September 11 attacks.
Click to expand...

When extraditing someone all governments have extradition hearings unless the individual waves their right, also its much more complex than interstate extradition hearings.

And sorry to say but the courts and the US government have determined that OBL did not plan or give the OK for the USS Cole attack in case you try to claim that voids any governments right to holding an extradition hearing.
 
Last edited:
ConspiracyKiller said:
And sorry to say but the courts and the US government have determined that OBL did not plan or give the OK for the USS Cole attack in case you try to claim that voids any governments right to holding an extradition hearing.
Click to expand...

You've crossed the line from misinterpreting to flat out lying.

This speaks volumes about your own faith in your claims.

Why bring any of this up if you, yourself, don't believe it?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
You've crossed the line from misinterpreting to flat out lying.

This speaks volumes about your own faith in your claims.

Why bring any of this up if you, yourself, don't believe it?
Click to expand...

It’s called Wikipedia USE IT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

I looked it up when I was trying to understand why the US was tuned down for lacking the evidence to get a UN security council resolution to invade Afghanistan.

What I found out is that OBL is not listed as the master mind nor has he been listed or has a court decision been made ruling him has one of the coconspirators plus no court has determined that he was responsible for the USS Cole attack.

As a matter of fact you can read bellow exactly what I found out.

It was an "unproven assumption" in late November. By December 21 the CIA had made a "preliminary judgment" that "al Qaeda appeared to have supported the attack," with no "definitive conclusion." http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_8.pdf

Condoleezza Rice told the 9/11 Commission that "We knew that there was speculation that the 2000 Cole attack was al Qaeda... We received, I think, on January 25 the same assessment [of al-Qaeda responsibility]. It was preliminary. It was not clear."

The 9/11 commission said: “On January 25, Tenet briefed the President on the Cole investigation. The written briefing repeated for top officials of the new administration what the CIA had told the Clinton White House in November. This included the "preliminary judgment" that al Qaeda was responsible, with the caveat that no evidence had yet been found that Bin Ladin himself ordered the attack... in March 2001, the CIA's briefing slides for Rice were still describing the CIA's "preliminary judgment" that a "strong circumstantial case" could be made against al Qaeda but noting that the CIA continued to lack "conclusive information on external command and control" of the attack.” http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

Federal judge Robert G. Doumar, ruled that the Sudanese government was liable for the bombing.
The judge stated "There is substantial evidence in this case presented by the expert testimony that the government of Sudan induced the particular bombing of the Cole by virtue of prior actions of the government of Sudan."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom