Here another reason why they can't find him...........

They should take a leaf out of the Thai Police book. Send him an SMS telling him he's won the monthly draw for a 52' Sony LCD TV but he has to collect it in person. The Thai Police caught several crooks the other week with that old one

So funny that trick always seems to work.

Anyway here a bit of history on Afghanistan and how the US had no problem with funding and training terrorists freedom fighters.

The mujahideen consisted of at least seven factions, who often fought amongst themselves in their battle for territory and control of the opium trade. To hurt the Russians, the U.S. deliberately chose to give the most support to the most extreme groups. A disproportionate share of U.S. arms went to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, "a particularly fanatical fundamentalist and woman-hater."' According to journalist Tim Weiner, " [Hekmatyar's] followers first gained attention by throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. CIA and State Department officials I have spoken with call him 'scary,' 'vicious,' 'a fascist,' 'definite dictatorship material."

You see no problems with that and again they are in talks with the Hekmatyrs.

There was, though, a kind of method in the madness: Brezinski hoped not just to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, but to ferment unrest within the Soviet Union itself. His plan, says author Dilip Hiro, was "to export a composite ideology of nationalism and Islam to the Muslim-majority Central Asian states and Soviet Republics with a view to destroying the Soviet order." Looking back in 1998, Brezinski had no regrets. "What was more important in the world view of history?... A few stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War>"

With the support of Pakistan's military dictator, General Zia-ul-Haq, the U.S. began recruiting and training both mujahideen fighters from the 3 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and large numbers of mercenaries from other Islamic countries. Estimates of how much money the U.S. government channeled to the Afghan rebels over the next decade vary, but most sources put the figure between $3 billion and $6 billion, or more. Whatever the exact amount, this was "the largest covert action program since World War II" - much bigger, for example, than Washington's intervention in Central America at the same time, which received considerably more publicity. According to one report:

The CIA became the grand coordinator: purchasing or arranging the manufacture of Soviet-style weapons from Egypt, China, Poland, Israel and elsewhere, or supplying their own; arranging for military training by Americans, Egyptians, Chinese and Iranians; hitting up Middle-Eastern countries for donations, notably Saudi Arabia which gave many hundreds of millions of dollars in aid each year, totaling probably more than a billion; pressuring and bribing Pakistan-with whom recent American relations had been very poor-to rent out its country as a military staging area and sanctuary; putting the Pakistani Director of Military Operations, Brigadier Mian Mohammad Afzal, onto the CIA payroll to ensure Pakistani cooperation.

When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he found the Democratic-controlled Congress eager to increase spending on the Afghan war. A congressional staffer told a reporter, "It was a windfall [for the new administration]. They'd faced so much opposition to covert action in Central America and here comes the Congress helping and throwing money at them, putting money their way and they say, 'Who are we to say no?"

Aid to the mujahideen, who Reagan praised as "freedom fighters," increased, but initially Afghanistan was not a priority:

In the first years after the Reagan administration inherited the Carter program, the covert Afghan war "tended to be handled out of [CIA director William] Casey's back pocket," recalled Ronald Spiers, a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, the base of the Afghan rebels. Mainly from China's government, the CIA purchased assault rifles, grenade launchers, mines and SA-7 light antiaircraft weapons, and then arranged for shipment to Pakistan.... The amounts were significant-10,000 tons of arms and ammunition in 1983, according to [Pakistani General Mohammed] Yousaf-but a fraction of what they would be in just a few years.

In March 1985, the Reagan administration issued National Security Decision Directive 166,29 a secret plan to escalate covert action in Afghanistan dramatically:

Abandoning a policy of simple harassment of Soviet occupiers, the Reagan team decided secretly to let loose on the Afghan battlefield an array of U.S. high technology and military expertise in an effort to hit and demoralize Soviet commanders and soldiers....

Beginning in 1985, the CIA supplied mujahideen rebels with extensive satellite reconnaissance data of Soviet targets on the Afghan battlefield, plans for military operations based on the satellite intelligence, intercepts of Soviet communications, secret communications networks for the rebels, delayed timing devices for tons of C-4 plastic explosives for urban sabotage, and sophisticated guerrilla attacks, long-range sniper rifles, a targeting device for mortars that was linked to a U.S. Navy satellite, wire-guided anti-tank missiles, and other equipment.

Between 1986 and 1989, the mujahideen were also provided with more than 1,000 state-of-the-art, shoulder-fired Stinger antiaircraft missiles.

By 1987, the annual supply of arms had reached 65,000 tons.......

You can find out a bit more when looking for: Operation cyclone. Story above from here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanis...IA_Taliban.html

So it all comes down to who started it and who should have turned the other cheek? Good luck to anyone who seriously tries to figure that one out.

1) I doubt he's alive too. When was the last time he was heard of or even seen? If he isn't dead, he's is bad shape.

No it all comes down to who will cease the aggression. As the occupier who goes first? If the occupier aggressor does not leave then how can the end be reached? If this is truly based on 19 causing damage on 9/11 then what is the number that will suffice in an eye for an eye? All of them....who ever them is? If so kick the stool out from under yourself now. As it will never happen.

But first of all you would have to believe in that fairy tale of a cause to begin with...I do not.

What has become of Vietnam after it all ended with a walk away? Has the sun ceased rising & setting?

Last verifiable seen/heard from 12/18/2001

Flying: "....No it all comes down to who will cease the aggression. As the occupier who goes first? If the occupier aggressor does not leave then how can the end be reached?...."

Worth repeating that.

Flying: "....No it all comes down to who will cease the aggression. As the occupier who goes first? If the occupier aggressor does not leave then how can the end be reached?...."

Worth repeating that.

In regards to Iraq, the occupiers are keeping the peace. Without them, a bloodbath will likely happen according to just about everybody involved. The sooner the Iraqis stop slaughtering each other the occupiers can go home. If the US decides to leave early, the same voices here crying out for them to leave, will be criticising the US for leaving behind an unstable country resulting in the mass killings. Maybe the US should pull out completely and let blue-helmet UN troops keep the peace - like they did in Rwanda.

For once, I'm tempted to click "Read koheesti's post".

Nahhhh.

In regards to Iraq, the occupiers are keeping the peace. Without them, a bloodbath will likely happen according to just about everybody involved. The sooner the Iraqis stop slaughtering each other the occupiers can go home. If the US decides to leave early, the same voices here crying out for them to leave, will be criticising the US for leaving behind an unstable country resulting in the mass killings. Maybe the US should pull out completely and let blue-helmet UN troops keep the peace - like they did in Rwanda.

Iraq, Iran & Afghanistan has been around a lot longer than the US.

Lets be realistic..... The US are not there to protect anything as the collateral damages alone probably out number what would happen if the US were not.

Why did the US go to Vietnam? To stop what? When they left what happened?

This will not end well in any case.

As it expands & grows into neighbouring countries alliances will be made.

Even now US & Israel will make pacts against Iran

US will eventually also be in an uncomfortable alliance with India against Pakistan soon enough.

Where do you think China will stand on that one?

I hope you have a broad view of your eye for an eye peace keeping.

A blind man can see where it is headed & will if nothing else....provide yet another diversion from the problems that are occurring back in their own US.

Flying: "....No it all comes down to who will cease the aggression. As the occupier who goes first? If the occupier aggressor does not leave then how can the end be reached?...."

Worth repeating that.

In regards to Iraq, the occupiers are keeping the peace. Without them, a bloodbath will likely happen according to just about everybody involved. The sooner the Iraqis stop slaughtering each other the occupiers can go home. If the US decides to leave early, the same voices here crying out for them to leave, will be criticising the US for leaving behind an unstable country resulting in the mass killings. Maybe the US should pull out completely and let blue-helmet UN troops keep the peace - like they did in Rwanda.

Not a word is incorrect. The crybabies would blame everything on the U.S. as per usual.

Sure and your next excuse will be something like they are there to prevent the Taliban take over because if they do they will invade Pakistan and get control of their nukes and blast Israel with them..

Gimme a break.

For the uninformed or ignorant the following book gives some insight about the geopolitical interests the US has over there. But it might be a hard to swallow to know all of this is happening to protect some economic interest. Or to motivate a soldier to go there.

http://books.google.de/books?id=ToYxFL5wmB...oll&f=false

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

It is well known that Pakistan's military is riddled with officers sympathetic to Musim radicals. If you do not realize that they may eventually gain access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, I feel sorry for you.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

It is well known that Pakistan's military is riddled with officers sympathetic to Musim radicals. If you do not realize that they may eventually gain access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, I feel sorry for you.

no need to panic! american remote-controlled drones will take care of these officers. there is a new generation of drones which fly around and ask in Urdu "what do you think about America?" if the answer is "amrika murdabad!" a few bullets will be applied. if the answer is "amrika zindabad!" chewing gum and a christian bible will be doled out.

A char-broiled American steak and a Cuban cigar would probably have better strategic results.

For once, I'm tempted to click "Read koheesti's post".

Nahhhh.

Still obsessing? That's soooo 2009.

Would this be worth fighting for?

"Pakistan had gold and copper reserves of trillions of dollars in Balochistan."

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-new...f-dollars-Samar

Regards.

Terrorism is a serious problem, but if it's not seen as blow back from our unwise foreign interventions, then the only solution offered will be more government control of our lives. We dont change foreign policy, we merely regulate the innocent American people by abandoning the Fourth Amendment protection of their privacy. Those who wanted bigger government anyway conveniently used the problems --- such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks--- to build fear in the people so they practically beg the government to protect them from harm

It has been said that no war has been fought without inflation. If we could ever devise a monetary system where inflation was prohibited, the chance of a war breaking out would be greatly reduced. If we had to immediately pay for our foreign entanglements, people would not tolerate paying the bill with higher taxation. It's the meddling in the internal affairs of other nations that brings about the conditions that result in armed conflict. Not initially financing foreign intervention would make us less likely to get involved in no-win, totally unnecessary wars.

Our carelessness in allowing our government, with congressional complicity, to finance foreign entanglements with FED Reserve credit makes it easy for Congress to neglect it's responsibility to avoid any war that is not specifically declared by Congress. Whether it's fighting illegal wars or financing them with fiat money, lack of respect for the Constitution and congressional apathy for its responsibility got us into the crisis which we find ourselves.

Quoted from a book I just finished by Ron Paul titled End The FED

I feel it is appropriate to look at the war <sic> from various angles.

This one the monetary angle really makes you wonder. For while Rome Burns.....

http://costofwar.com/

Very interesting.

That Ron Paul is a fascinating chap.

Jolly good old bean.

I find it interesting you seem to have not known him before Harcourt?

Also it is a bit boring to see that most ho justify these illegal wars are not really thinking outside the box, just replaying what the main stream propaganda machine has (effectively) been feeding them for many decades.

UG could you provide us here with some link where we can read those Pakistani officers have links with radicals and that they want to use those nukes?

Again the question if you feel 3000 innocent people where murdered by an act of war (9/11) where the goal might have been the destruction of some symbols of power and as a result there was some collateral damage. Can you understand that every time innocent people are killed that the people related to the victims consider it murder?

How would you feel if for example China would bomb the sh1t out of NY because one of the terrorist that committed some act of terror in China was trained there?

Just asking

And by the way UG, why do you mention skinning a cat, cat's are nice!

Actually it is the posters who justify terrorism who are boring. They whine and whinge and just repeat the same old PC propoganda over and over without thinking about what they are saying. When China becomes the top dog, they will finally realize how stupid they have been.

I do not justify the killing of innocent people UG.

Can you please reply to my question?

I do not justify the killing of innocent people UG.

AlexLahPosted Today, 2010-01-05 21:10:46Again the question if you feel 3000 innocent people where murdered by an act of war (9/11) where the goal might have been the destruction of some symbols of power and as a result there was some collateral damage.

Of course you do and if the US Government trained a terrorist to go to China and blow up 2 buildings full of civilians, I would figure we had it coming - but we didn't.

Actually it is the posters who justify terrorism who are boring.

When China becomes the top dog, they will finally realize how stupid they have been.

Would all the folks killed by collateral damage be just in claiming they were victims of terrorism?

If so at that point who are the terrorist?

You think China is the next great empire,,,,again? I imagine many already think so. For if not for their propping of certain crumbling economies & financing those may have already fallen. But, I will agree that all through history all great empires came to en end.

But their demise was always due to their aggressions & poor monetary policies, & not caused by citizens complaining about such stupidity. In fact quite the opposite. If there was more refusal to participate in such stupidity many of those empires may have continued. Instead, in most cases, the sheeple followed with blind faith what ever saviour was the new flavor

Look at history for indisputable examples.

But, I will agree that all through history all great empires came to en end.

But their demise was always due to their aggressions & poor monetary policies

Actually, it was often due to weak, stupid citizens who were spoiled by their lifestyles and theri wealth. They were selfish and refused to work together for the common good.

Sound familiar?

But, I will agree that all through history all great empires came to en end.

But their demise was always due to their aggressions & poor monetary policies

Actually, it was often due to weak, stupid citizens who were spoiled by their lifestyles and theri wealth. They were selfish and refused to work together for the common good.

Sound familiar?

No it does not sound familiar...Perhaps you could give us an example? Romans? Germans? Brits? Japanese? etc.......

Tell us how it was not the military/wars/grab for land occupation/monetary policies/ enforcement of foreign policies etc, that did not cause their fall....

But instead it was the selfish whining spoiled citizens who caused it...Please do tell if you have the time

But, I will agree that all through history all great empires came to en end.

But their demise was always due to their aggressions & poor monetary policies

Actually, it was often due to weak, stupid citizens who were spoiled by their lifestyles and theri wealth. They were selfish and refused to work together for the common good.

Sound familiar?

Have to agree with UG here. Democracy is dependant on enlightened self interest and active citizen oversight.

But, I will agree that all through history all great empires came to en end.

But their demise was always due to their aggressions & poor monetary policies

Actually, it was often due to weak, stupid citizens who were spoiled by their lifestyles and theri wealth. They were selfish and refused to work together for the common good.

Sound familiar?

No it does not sound familiar...Perhaps you could give us an example? Romans? Germans? Brits? Japanese? etc.......

Tell us how it was not the military/wars/grab for land occupation/monetary policies/ enforcement of foreign policies etc, that did not cause their fall....

But instead it was the selfish whining spoiled citizens who caused it...Please do tell if you have the time

Start by reading "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire', it is all there.

UG could you provide us here with some link where we can read those Pakistani officers have links with radicals and that they want to use those nukes?

www.nationalenquirer.com

fauxnews.com/oreilly

fauxnews.com/hannity

UG could you provide us here with some link where we can read those Pakistani officers have links with radicals and that they want to use those nukes?

It is not exactly a secret.

Defending the Arsenal

In an unstable Pakistan, can nuclear warheads be kept safe?by Seymour M. Hersh

In the tumultuous days leading up to the Pakistan Army's ground offensive in the tribal area of South Waziristan, which began on October 17th, the Pakistani Taliban attacked what should have been some of the country's best-guarded targets. In the most brazen strike, ten gunmen penetrated the Army's main headquarters, in Rawalpindi, instigating a twenty-two-hour standoff that left twenty-three dead and the military thoroughly embarrassed. The terrorists had been dressed in Army uniforms. There were also attacks on police installations in Peshawar and Lahore, and, once the offensive began, an Army general was shot dead by gunmen on motorcycles on the streets of Islamabad, the capital. The assassins clearly had advance knowledge of the general's route, indicating that they had contacts and allies inside the security forces. </H4>Pakistan has been a nuclear power for two decades, and has an estimated eighty to a hundred warheads, scattered in facilities around the country. The success of the latest attacks raised an obvious question: Are the bombs safe? Asked this question the day after the Rawalpindi raid, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "We have confidence in the Pakistani government and the military's control over nuclear weapons." Clinton—whose own visit to Pakistan, two weeks later, would be disrupted by more terrorist bombs—added that, despite the attacks by the Taliban, "we see no evidence that they are going to take over the state."

Clinton's words sounded reassuring, and several current and former officials also said in interviews that the Pakistan Army was in full control of the nuclear arsenal. But the Taliban overrunning Islamabad is not the only, or even the greatest, concern. The principal fear is mutiny—that extremists inside the Pakistani military might stage a coup, take control of some nuclear assets, or even divert a warhead.

On April 29th, President Obama was asked at a news conference whether he could reassure the American people that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal could be kept away from terrorists. Obama's answer remains the clearest delineation of the Administration's public posture. He was, he said, "gravely concerned" about the fragility of the civilian government of President Asif Ali Zardari. "Their biggest threat right now comes internally," Obama said. "We have huge . . . national-security interests in making sure that Pakistan is stable and that you don't end up having a nuclear-armed militant state." The United States, he said, could "make sure that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is secure—primarily, initially, because the Pakistan Army, I think, recognizes the hazards of those weapons' falling into the wrong hands."

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11...e#ixzz0bn7sZcdL

Have to agree with UG here. Democracy is dependant on enlightened self interest and active citizen oversight.

You mean like when We The People said no to TARP?

Our reps listened & voted NO

Days later under pressure they reversed our vote & went on their on to vote yes?

Without so much as asking the people who elected them if they would like to reverse their stance?

Leaving us in a state of no representation?

We could easily do a government gone wild DVD much like girls gone wild....It is the same.

As has been clearly shown this past year & the misuse of those funds all of which were not used for what Paulson claimed they would be used for....

It is a joke to assume citizens enlightened or not have any real power when it comes to things that truly matter.

Start by reading "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire', it is all there.

Good example now quote a passage that supports your claim

Let me get this straight then....Your claim is Iraq..Afghanistan etc is how citizens/democracy stays strong?

Because what I am hearing from you is you support it all & it is the way things are done?

You know what would be a simple exercise for this mess in Afghanistan? For the Taliban or Al Queda or who ever US are claiming to chase .....For them to lay down or leave. Not that America would do the same if occupied but it would prove a point.

What then would the US use as the excuse for staying?

Not that they need a valid one any more than the now proven lack of WMD's that they used for entry to Iraq.

Or the new building claim of Iran having materials which could give them nuclear warhead capability.

But it would be simple

It is a joke to assume citizens enlightened or not have any real power when it comes to things that truly matter.

The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.

Alice Walker