Osama bin Laden is dead

[GostHacked]

Kimmy, I agree with

It's not far fetched to think that 1 in 50 voters might have changed their mind following the video. The Newsweek poll shows 2 in 50 did so.

I would say it had an influence on the voters as well. Maybe just not as high as I thought they would be.

BushCheney

All the better...Osama's video didn't mean anything after all, and certainly not a 6 point swing. It was just another American federal election...they happen like clockwork. Osama videos or no Osama videos.

Yeah last time they ignored good ol' Jihad Joe, they end up having some planes fly into some buildings. Again, Bush even them, and now again says, that he is not very interested in Bin Laden. Bin Laden is not being scary terrorist like in the video, so he is marginalized when even the Master of Terror himself is just spewing out some non interesting words. Blowback blows up buildings.

Kuzzad, has there been any other videos posted in the past that do this? Could it be the one source edited it for whatever reason? But that is weird, even if authentic.

[bush_cheney2004]

BushCheney

Yeah last time they ignored good ol' Jihad Joe, they end up having some planes fly into some buildings. Again, Bush even them, and now again says, that he is not very interested in Bin Laden. Bin Laden is not being scary terrorist like in the video, so he is marginalized when even the Master of Terror himself is just spewing out some non interesting words. Blowback blows up buildings.

And it was "blowing up" buildings long before President Bush took office. Videos and claims of responsibiltiy from "Al Qaeda" didn't alter elections then either. Had a nice truck bomb detonation back in 1993 IIRC.

This warped chapter has some Canadians watching the Americans for reactions to terrorist videos so they can hope and pray for some path out of Afghanistan that they can't find by themselves.

[kimmy]

This warped chapter has some Canadians watching the Americans for reactions to terrorist videos so they can hope and pray for some path out of Afghanistan that they can't find by themselves.

This is a remarkably stupid comment.

Hope and prayer has nothing to do with Canada's getting out of Afghanistan. Canada is in Afghanistan because Canada has committed to remaining there until February 2009.

Canada will leave Afghanistan no sooner than that. And unless Harper wins the next election, Canada will leave no later, either.

If you people don't recognize or appreciate Canada's presence in Afghanistan, then I guess that's of little concern to you. If, by some chance, you do, then maybe you should "hope and pray" that Harper remains Prime Minister until then.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

This is a remarkably stupid comment.

No, actually it is spot on...just ask the Harper = Bush crowd. The pitiful display of domestic impotence in the face of PM Harper's leadership on the matter leaves his enemies no choice but to seek relief from a change in AMERICAN leadership and foreign policy.

You have every right to be upset about this!

Hope and prayer has nothing to do with Canada's getting out of Afghanistan. Canada is in Afghanistan because Canada has committed to remaining there until February 2009.

Wrong...Canada is in Afghanistan because of the NATO Charter and UN resolutions.

Canada will leave Afghanistan no sooner than that. And unless Harper wins the next election, Canada will leave no later, either.

If you people don't recognize or appreciate Canada's presence in Afghanistan, then I guess that's of little concern to you. If, by some chance, you do, then maybe you should "hope and pray" that Harper remains Prime Minister until then.

PM Harper will win his next election...perhaps you meant the CPC?

Do "YOU PEOPLE" appreciate the American presence in Afghanistan? If not, then we're even. Canada can stay or go as it pleases, but not without a good measure of hoping and praying for what the Americans will do there, and elsewhere. More Osama videos are due soon...get the popcorn ready.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Edited September 11, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[kimmy]

No, actually it is spot on...just ask the Harper = Bush crowd. The pitiful display of domestic impotence in the face of PM Harper's leadership on the matter leaves his enemies no choice but to seek relief from a change in AMERICAN leadership and foreign policy.

You have every right to be upset about this!

I'm not upset about it at all. I support Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. I support the original reasons we went, and I support the efforts to rebuild and stabilize the country. I smile a little inside with each Taliban fighter that's snuffed out.

Wrong...Canada is in Afghanistan because of the NATO Charter and UN resolutions.

Canada's commitment expires in February 2009, and unless Harper is returned as Prime Minister, it will not be renewed. American policy notwithstanding.

PM Harper will win his next election...perhaps you meant the CPC?

well duh.

Your "Our Neighbors To The North" handbook may have informed you that Canadians vote to elect Members of Parliament, and while that's true in theory, in practice Canadians vote for a Prime Minister.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not upset about it at all. I support Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. I support the original reasons we went, and I support the efforts to rebuild and stabilize the country. I smile a little inside with each Taliban fighter that's snuffed out.

How do you keep track of such things?

Canada's commitment expires in February 2009, and unless Harper is returned as Prime Minister, it will not be renewed. American policy notwithstanding.

No...this remains to be seen (HoC vote). Either way, Canada will still have a commitment in some capacity long after 2009. Will Canada stay until 2009 even if the American leave before then?

well duh.

Your "Our Neighbors To The North" handbook may have informed you that Canadians vote to elect Members of Parliament, and while that's true in theory, in practice Canadians vote for a Prime Minister.

It's true in fact, not theory. See "riding" and "political party". Duh!

Edited September 11, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Whoever is putting this video out, I can only speculate.

But, IMO, Binladen is dead, and has been for some time now.

But wonder who benefits from flogging the dead man, and his messages of fear etc., to the west.

Rumour has it, there is going to be another one this week, let's see?

Looks as if rumor is correct. Bin Laden eulogizes 9/11 hijacker in new tape

As to who benefits from it-- the media, perhaps? Seems to me this is the kind of news they like, although I haven't been watching to see if this is being played over and over on CNN, Fox, etc. And it does keep al Qaeda in the news, giving them the means to get their message out worldwide. Perhaps it's inflaming Muslims, gaining more support, and therefore benefitting them.

[kuzadd]

Looks as if rumor is correct. Bin Laden eulogizes 9/11 hijacker in new tape

As to who benefits from it-- the media, perhaps? Seems to me this is the kind of news they like, although I haven't been watching to see if this is being played over and over on CNN, Fox, etc. And it does keep al Qaeda in the news, giving them the means to get their message out worldwide. Perhaps it's inflaming Muslims, gaining more support, and therefore benefitting them.

Personally, I don't think these videos are intended to inflame Muslims.

The "message" in them is not geared in that direction.

it's geared to the west.

In fact, I would almost safely say, this message was geared to the 'religious right', feeding there fear factor of the "Islamic world takeover". While, making OBL, sound like a US democrat.

Noam Chomsky book reviews?

IMO, given the abject poverty in the ME countries, the misery that vast swathes of ME live in, they could care less, in won't make one bit of difference to them. A great many of them won't even know about the tape.

I think the Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghan, even the majority of Saudi's have much bigger issues, on there plate.

"AlQuaeda" doesn't need videos to stay in the news, they are never out of the news.

AlQuaeda is everywhere! Take a look through any western media resource. AlQueda is in Iraq, in Africa, in Europe, there allegedly everywhere and in the news all the time. They have no need for a video release. AlQuaeda, AlQuaeda,AlQuaeda,AlQuaeda

[kuzadd]

Kuzzad, has there been any other videos posted in the past that do this? Could it be the one source edited it for whatever reason? But that is weird, even if authentic.

I don't know.

Did you watch it?

It is available in it's entirety.

[kuzadd]

Do "YOU PEOPLE" appreciate the American presence in Afghanistan? If not, then we're even. Canada can stay or go as it pleases, but not without a good measure of hoping and praying for what the Americans will do there, and elsewhere. More Osama videos are due soon...get the popcorn ready.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

I don't appreciate American presence in Afghanistan, nor do I support or appreciate Canada's presence in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan had NOTHING to do with 9/11, therefore the attackon that country, was BS.

Holding Afghanistan the country, responsible for alleged crimes, committed by criminals, is as stupid, as, for example, holding Canada the country, responsible, for some mass murders committed by a Canadian.

BS!

The US wanted IN to Afghanistan prior to 9/11.

"Before September 11, the U.S. government had an extremely benevolent understanding of the Taliban. The Taliban was perceived "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia" from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbek-istan and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. This would have secured for the U.S. another huge captive and alternate oil resource centre. "The oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that... this rationale of energy security changed into a military one," the authors claim.

"At one moment during the negotiations, U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs',"

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issu...french_book.htm

Article based on recently released book written by two French intelligence analysts is certain to embarrass President George W.Bush and his administration. The book, Bin Laden, La Verite Interdite (Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth), claims that FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over Bush's obstruction of an investigation into Taliban's terrorist activities. The authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Das-quie, claim that Bush resorted to this obstruction under the influence of U.S. oil companies.

http://www.janes.com/security/internationa...10315_1_n.shtml

India joins anti-Taliban coalition

15 March 2001

By Rahul Bedi

India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.

Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern Alliance's capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the four countries' collaborative effort.

http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures...p;mp;ctg=policy

India in anti-Taliban military plan

India and Iran will "facilitate" the planned US-Russia hostilities against the Taliban.

26 June 2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action" against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime.

Sept 11th had ZERO to do with the attack on Afghanistan, and one would have to be truly gullible to believe, this was anything but a continuation of US foreign policy wrt oil.

Edited September 11, 2007 by kuzadd

[bush_cheney2004]

Sept 11th had ZERO to do with the attack on Afghanistan, and one would have to be truly gullible to believe, this was anything but a continuation of US foreign policy wrt oil.

OK, so you would not hold the US government responsible for failing to prosecute "criminal" NBCR (nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological) attacks on Toronto originating from individuals based and trained in Idaho or Kansas? You would simply call 911 or the RCMP and file a report? Fortunately, most Canadians do not agree.

[M.Dancer]

OK, so you would not hold the US government responsible for failing to prosecute "criminal" NBCR (nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological) attacks on Toronto originating from individuals based and trained in Idaho or Kansas? You would simply call 911 or the RCMP and file a report? Fortunately, most Canadians do not agree.

I don't know if I would hold the US Government responsible for simply having terrorists based there. But is those terrorists received succor and support from the US government in the same way Bin Laden did from the TAliban....then I think war would be reasonable......

[GostHacked]

Bush Cheney

No, actually it is spot on...just ask the Harper = Bush crowd. The pitiful display of domestic impotence in the face of PM Harper's leadership on the matter leaves his enemies no choice but to seek relief from a change in AMERICAN leadership and foreign policy.

You have every right to be upset about this!

Meh, again as a Canadian, you get no arguments from me in your American views of the Canadian political system and it's policies. Like they care what an American has to say. Or whatever it is you say all the time. Harper and Bush are both crooked idiots. No arguments here.

OK, so you would not hold the US government responsible for failing to prosecute "criminal" NBCR (nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological) attacks on Toronto originating from individuals based and trained in Idaho or Kansas? You would simply call 911 or the RCMP and file a report? Fortunately, most Canadians do not agree.

Where did the hijackers on 9/11 come from again?? OH THAT IS RIGHT ... Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. So the US holds Afghanistan and Iraq responsible for this. In a way, invading Afghanistan made sense for Osama Bin Laden was operating out of there with his private stash of cash. Oh we do know that Osama Bin Laden is originally from Saudi Arabia as well as most of those 9/11 hijackers. Osama sets up camp in Afghanistan, recruits some Pakistanis and Saudis to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks. But we know from reports that Kaled Sheik Mohammed (KSM) while in Gitmo confessed and took responsibility as the master mind and brains behind it. Osama maybe just bankrolled the operation.

Now we should look into this but, was Osama with the Taliban or Mujajhdeen? I can't recall who the CIA funded again.

Anyways... So Iraq was invaded in 2003. Not one of the 9/11 hijackers was Iraqi. So . . . besides the Neo Cons and PNACs long term plan for Middle East transformation even IF you consider 9/11 in this equation, does it make any sense at all that Iraq was invaded?

EDIT - one more thing, take also into consideration that no hijackers were from Iraq as well as none were trained in Iraq.

Edited September 11, 2007 by GostHacked

[Guest American Woman]

Sept 11th had ZERO to do with the attack on Afghanistan, and one would have to be truly gullible to believe, this was anything but a continuation of US foreign policy wrt oil.

OK, so you would not hold the US government responsible for failing to prosecute "criminal" NBCR (nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological) attacks on Toronto originating from individuals based and trained in Idaho or Kansas? You would simply call 911 or the RCMP and file a report? Fortunately, most Canadians do not agree.

Holding the Taliban responsible is, IMO, valid. But a full force attack that kills more innocent civilians than 'bad guys' and more innocent people than were killed in the 9-11 attacks isn't the answer. How is that justifiable? How is killing innocents in Afghanistan different from innocent people being killed on our soil? Is it ok to kill them so we don't get killed/we can feel safer? I don't feel safer myself, but I have to believe that was the rationale behind the war; to make people here feel safer and to prevent more deaths on our soil. So I don't believe the attack on Afghanistan had zero to do with 9-11, but I don't think it was the right way to handle the situation either. I can't see how killing them is any better than our being killed.

[bush_cheney2004]

Holding the Taliban responsible is, IMO, valid. But a full force attack that kills more innocent civilians than 'bad guys' and more innocent people than were killed in the 9-11 attacks isn't the answer. How is that justifiable? How is killing innocents in Afghanistan different from innocent people being killed on our soil? Is it ok to kill them so we don't get killed/we can feel safer? I don't feel safer myself, but I have to believe that was the rationale behind the war; to make people here feel safer and to prevent more deaths on our soil. So I don't believe the attack on Afghanistan had zero to do with 9-11, but I don't think it was the right way to handle the situation either. I can't see how killing them is any better than our being killed.

Well that's just ducky...you have the luxury of not knowing the "right" thing to do up to and including doing nothing. The US president and other heads of state decided otherwise, since continuation of a failed Afghanistan under the Taliban represented a present and future threat. The Taliban could have extridited Osama His Mama and closed the training camps, but they chose the hard way instead. Even Clinton sent a few cruise missiles their way back in 1998 (half-ass effort), before 9/11 ever happened. George Bush and NATO would do much better (including Canada).

There have been no more attacks on the US....the battle has been enjoined elsewhere, and yes, that means lots of innocent people are going to die, just like any other war. It's what we do, and we do it well. Let it be a Jihad to remember.

[Guest American Woman]

Well that's just ducky...you have the luxury of not knowing the "right" thing to do up to and including doing nothing.

Where did I say anything about not knowing the right thing to do and/or doing nothing?? Your anger seems to have diminished your reading skills.

The US president and other heads of state decided otherwise, since continuation of a failed Afghanistan under the Taliban represented a present and future threat. The Taliban could have extridited Osama His Mama and closed the training camps, but they chose the hard way instead. Even Clinton sent a few cruise missiles their way back in 1998 (half-ass effort), before 9/11 ever happened. George Bush and NATO would do much better (including Canada).

Just because the president and other heads of states decided an all out attack on Afghanistan was the right thing to do doesn't mean it was. They too are mere mortals, capable of making mistakes. It's not as if mistakes hadn't been made in the past.

There have been no more attacks on the US....the battle has been enjoined elsewhere, and yes, that means lots of innocent people are going to die, just like any other war. It's what we do, and we do it well. Let it be a Jihad to remember.

Yes, the battle has been enjoined elsewhere, so others can die. Like I said, our killing innocents is no better than our innocents being killed. Yes, it's "what we do," but it's wrong, and we don't do it quite as well as you seem to think we do. As for no more attacks on the US, there were more than six years without attacks on U.S. soil prior to 9-11, so that in itself is no proof that we are 'safer.' It's no proof that the war on terrorism has been handled correctly or has accomplished anything.

"Nearly six years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives expended in the name of the war on terror pose a single, insistent question: Are we safer?

On Tuesday, in a dark and strikingly candid two pages, the nation’s intelligence agencies offered an implicit answer, and it was not encouraging. In many respects, the National Intelligence Estimate suggests, the threat of terrorist violence against the United States is growing worse, fueled by the Iraq war and spreading Islamic extremism."

6 Years After 9/11, the Same Threat

[bush_cheney2004]

Where did I say anything about not knowing the right thing to do and/or doing nothing?? Your anger seems to have diminished your reading skills.

Then please tell us the "right" thing to have done....six years after the fact, Einstein.

Just because the president and other heads of states decided an all out attack on Afghanistan was the right thing to do doesn't mean it was. They too are mere mortals, capable of making mistakes. It's not as if mistakes hadn't been made in the past.

Yes, the battle has been enjoined elsewhere, so others can die. Like I said, our killing innocents is no better than our innocents being killed. Yes, it's "what we do," but it's wrong, and we don't do it quite as well as you seem to think we do. As for no more attacks on the US, there were more than six years without attacks on U.S. soil prior to 9-11, so that in itself is no proof that we are 'safer.' It's no proof that the war on terrorism has been handled correctly or has accomplished anything.

There is no such thing as safer.....only probability and statistics. Perhaps you missed those classes in favor of Political Science Using Coke and a Smile"?

On Tuesday, in a dark and strikingly candid two pages, the nation’s intelligence agencies offered an implicit answer, and it was not encouraging. In many respects, the National Intelligence Estimate suggests, the threat of terrorist violence against the United States is growing worse, fueled by the Iraq war and spreading Islamic extremism."

Yawn....doesn't compare to the 40 year threat of thermonuclear incineration. Didn't those same NIE clowns have an opinion about attacks before 9/11???

[Guest American Woman]

Then please tell us the "right" thing to have done....six years after the fact, Einstein.

There is no such thing as safer.....only probability and statistics. Perhaps you missed those classes in favor of Political Science Using Coke and a Smile"?

Yawn....doesn't compare to the 40 year threat of thermonuclear incineration. Didn't those same NIE clowns have an opinion about attacks before 9/11???

I don't respond to that level of dialog. When/if you're capable of continuing the dicsussion in a reasonable, intelligent manner, I'll be more than happy to continue discussing it with you. Until then, get a grip on your anger.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't respond to that level of dialog. When/if you're capable of continuing the dicsussion in a reasonable, intelligent manner, I'll be more than happy to continue discussing it with you. Until then, get a grip on your anger.

Oh..you mean like this sort of insult...."Your anger seems to have diminished your reading skills".

For the upmteenth time..if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

You obviously want to avoid the question...no matter.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh..you mean like this sort of insult...."Your anger seems to have diminished your reading skills".

For the upmteenth time..if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

You obviously want to avoid the question...no matter.

That was in response to: "Well that's just ducky...you have the luxury of not knowing the 'right' thing to do up to and including doing nothing." which not what I said at all. So if you are going get snippy and accuse me of things that aren't true, don't expect a civil response.

As for wanting to avoid the question-- I seriously wouldn't waste two minutes of my time trying to have a discussion with someone who resorts to your level of dialog off the computer, so I can't think of one reason why I should waste my time online.

[bush_cheney2004]

That was in response to: "Well that's just ducky...you have the luxury of not knowing the 'right' thing to do up to and including doing nothing." which not what I said at all. So if you are going get snippy and accuse me of things that aren't true, don't expect a civil response.

As for wanting to avoid the question-- I seriously wouldn't waste two minutes of my time trying to have a discussion with someone who resorts to your level of dialog off the computer, so I can't think of one reason why I should waste my time online.

Thank you for revealing that you have nothing of substance to offer besides insults. As far as "snippy responses" go, I am more than happy to spar with equal or greater measure. My reading skills are just fine, and you are not in any position to assess them anyway, presumed or otherwise.

Edited September 12, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[kuzadd]

OK, so you would not hold the US government responsible for failing to prosecute "criminal" NBCR (nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological) attacks on Toronto originating from individuals based and trained in Idaho or Kansas? You would simply call 911 or the RCMP and file a report? Fortunately, most Canadians do not agree.

Prosecuting criminals and decimating a country are 2 entirely different things.

I expect criminals to be held culpable!

I don't expect, everyone, and everything to have to suffer ,in an entire nation for the few.

Edited September 12, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

I don't know if I would hold the US Government responsible for simply having terrorists based there. But is those terrorists received succor and support from the US government in the same way Bin Laden did from the TAliban....then I think war would be reasonable......

Do you KNOW for certain the Taliban did that?

Cause we KNOW the Taliban said they would give Osama to the US, hardly indicative of a government, giving unconditional support.

[kuzadd]

Well that's just ducky...you have the luxury of not knowing the "right" thing to do up to and including doing nothing. The US president and other heads of state decided otherwise, since continuation of a failed Afghanistan under the Taliban represented a present and future threat. The Taliban could have extridited Osama His Mama and closed the training camps, but they chose the hard way instead. Even Clinton sent a few cruise missiles their way back in 1998 (half-ass effort), before 9/11 ever happened. George Bush and NATO would do much better (including Canada).

There have been no more attacks on the US....the battle has been enjoined elsewhere, and yes, that means lots of innocent people are going to die, just like any other war. It's what we do, and we do it well. Let it be a Jihad to remember.

This is when BC totally surprises me, cause, bs is bs, and the US wanted in to Afghan prior to 9/11, then along came 9/11 giving them the perfect pretext!

Unocal and oilpipelines my friend, is the way it works!

God, the US oil co. loved the Taliban so, they brought the good ol boys to Texas, to talk oil!

Bush has intimate ties to that sector was he there, or Cheney?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

World: West Asia

Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline

A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.

A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.

Unocal says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it

Then along came Bridas, that made things messy.

Taliban offered Osama up,

as early as February /01,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15046240/

transcript from video clip

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and the—they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments (INAUDIBLE)?

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.

then in March /01

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...nvoy#a0301envoy

March 2001: US and Taliban Discuss Handing over bin Laden

Edit event

Taliban envoy Rahmatullah Hashimi meets with reporters, middle-ranking State Department bureaucrats, and private Afghanistan experts in Washington. He carries a gift carpet and a letter from Afghan leader Mullah Omar for President Bush. He discusses turning bin Laden over, but the US wants to be handed bin Laden and the Taliban want to turn him over to some third country.

then again June 2001

Early June 2001: Taliban Leader Claims Interest in Resolving bin Laden Issue

Reclusive Taliban leader Mullah Omar says the Taliban would like to resolve the bin Laden issue, so there can be “an easing and then lifting of UN sanctions that are strangling and killing the people of [Afghanistan].”

then they offered again and again!!!

The US was not after Osama, it was the pipeline deal, that was dear to them. Taliban could have handed Osama to the US on a plate with dressing and the US still would have attacked Afghanistan.

Utter nonsense to think otherwise.

Edited September 12, 2007 by kuzadd

[jbg]

Where did the hijackers on 9/11 come from again?? OH THAT IS RIGHT ... Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. So the US holds Afghanistan and Iraq responsible for this.

Actually, Afghanistan was allowing them to train and organize there. If a country permits its land to be used to organize atacks on another it is putting itself in the line of fire. Just ask Pancho Villa.