U.S. 'Planned Attack On Taleban'.(.................. in spring, 2001)

[No Exit]

Tuesday, 18 September, 2001, 11:27 GMT 12:27 UK
US 'planned attack on Taleban'

By the BBC's George Arney

The wider objective was to oust the Taleban

A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Russian troops were on standby

Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.

Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.

(snip)

So, like, we were planning to attack Afghanistan and take out the Taliban even as early as July, 2001, or earlier? And after 9/11 it suddenly became imperative that we attack Afghanistan and take out the Taliban? Why, what a coincidence...







http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm

[SammyBlue]

1. Can it get more embarassing?

Taleban? Is that the BBC's typo or the Chimp's? If it's the Chimp's, I will refer you to the post's topic sentence for my question.

[DavidDvorkin]

4. I've seen it spelled both ways in English

It's a transliteration, anyway.

[SweetLeftFoot]

9. Taleban/Taliban

It's BBC style.

You see both styles used here Taleban/Taliban - same with al-Qaeda/Qaida/Qa'ida

[Emillereid]

2. The 911 attack sure came in handy, oui?

There were articles in the European press in the Spring of 2001 predicting that the US would be at war with Afghanistan by October of 2001. Curiouser and curiouser!

[Generarth]

3. Oui

I'm absolutely certain that someone released information on these 9/11 plans in 99.

[No Exit]

6. How very conveeenient it all was...

Bridas (Argentine company) had gotten a contract with the government of Afghanistan (the Taliban), a contract which Unocal (American company) had wanted to get.

Attempts to bust up the contract were made, to no avail. Bridas even sued (in United States federal court) on this point, and won. So then the only thing to do to open up this "opportunity" to Unocal, was to eliminate one of the parties to the contract.

One of the parties to the contract was the Taliban, which was swept from power by our 2001 invasion. Oh, but of COURSE we only did that because they were "harboring terrorists." Mmm-hmm.

[No Exit]

5. Sure did! And it wasn't just Michael Moore noticing it. Much can

be gleaned from a lawsuit by Bridas (an Argentine company) against Turkmenistan (and, I think, Unocal)--a lawsuit which passed through the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. (The U.S. Supreme Court, which eventually was appealed to, did not change the Appeals court's ruling.)

Bridas had sued because it alleged the defendants had interfered with its contractual relations with the Taliban. (I first read of this at a place called onlinejournal.com. People can say what they want about "stuff on the internet", but the court papers--public record--are THERE for anyone to see.)

The long and short of it was that Bridas had gotten a contract that Unocal had wanted to get. When Bridas and the Taliban's contract couldn't be broken up, the only way left to eliminate the contract (and thus clear the way for Unocal) was to eliminate one of the parties--such as the Taliban, which was indeed ousted from power by our invasion of Afghanistan.

[Matilda]

8. I remember reading that ages ago, but couldn't remember where.

I do remember reading that Bush had said back in April of 2001
that "The Taliban have got to go", and it was because Unocal couldn't
get the pipeline contract it wanted with the Taliban. It quite
possibly was via Michael Moore.

[No Exit]

10. There are two articles (PDF format) to be found in the archives of

www.onlinejournal.com. Look for the name Bridas in the article title.

I have to correct something I said earlier, now that I've reread one of those articles: I said Bridas had prevailed in its suit in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Actually, though, the place where Bridas prevailed was in its appeal to the International Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. 5th Circuit said Bridas failed to establish jurisdiction.

[Briar]

11. Yes, this is old news

What I find strange is the way it was erased from the official narrative.

[depakid]

7. And yet we gave them $43 million in May of 2001?

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050518223342591

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

This whole thing (including the source) doesn't ring true.

[Algorem]

12. Bush couldn't have destroyed Al Qaida & Bin Laden w/o making cronies

richer/more powerful with Afghanistan bomb-fest.Got 'em on the run,got 'em hiding.More wars should do the trick.

[applegrove]

13. Actually Bill Clinton handed a plan to Bush from the fall of 2000. They

finally had the evidence on the "Cole" that was lacking in the African Embassy bombings and they had a reason to attack Afghanistan because the Taliban was hiding bin Laden.

So - if Bush up-dated the plan - who cares!

That was a justified war and may have even been justified before 9/11 - to pressure or bring sanctions against the Taliban for aiding & abetting bin Laden as he killed hundreds around the world with one bombing after another.

Bin laden had been #1 on the CIA hit list in the last part of Clinton's reign.

Bin Laden was a bad man. He still is. He switched from bringing terrorism & bombings from inside the Middle East to bringing them outside the Middle East in the 1990s. Because he & his Islamofascist pals wanted one big arab or if not arab -muslim) country from the Atlantic to Asia. He started targeting the West because it was a juicy way to get followers in the way that bombing civilians within the middle east wasn't working for him.

Read Gynne Dyers's book. He is a Canadian/British military expert & columnist who doesn't like neocons and pretty much called this war in Iraq as a failure.

He points out that until bin Laden started attacking the West - his movement wasn't going very far in the Middle East. Okay - sure - Islamic loosers were signing up for training camps - in very small numbers and out of those, only a few remained to stay and blow themselves up - most Islamofascist youth simply went home to Egypt or Algeria or Lebanon and went to university and the like.

Al Franken also goes into how Bush went to Afghanistan using Bill Clinton's plan in Lying Liars.

This is no big deal. They have plans on lots of places. That is what generals do when the U.S.A. is not at war. Too bad Rummy didn't use the plan the Generals had for Iraq - I mean - since Rummy & gang fooled everyone into going into Iraq - too bad they only brought half the troops.