You still have not responded to this: Notice how that contrary to the lie you were fed, Brzezinski admits that the US was stirring up the fundamentalists BEFORE the Soviet troops were there. Their lies don't bother you huh? You don't feel that the powers that be in America made a fool out of you?

<< Still don't know what "yellow rain" is? >>

a chemical. I knew, do you think that justifies using terrorism against the Afghani government before the Soviets intervened militarily?? You are desperately trying to make excuses for the US inflicting terrorism on the Afghanis. WHY IS THIS?
So what the Soviet military used after we started to inflict Afghanistan with foreign terrorists somehow makes everything done by the US OK?
What are you doing?
Being an American doesn't mean grasping at excuses for the actions of US policy makers. Was it OK what Enron did? Remember, they were Americans, you wouldn't want to be "anti-American" would you?

I have given you info that shows we were fed lies and that we supported terrorism. That we hurt the Afghanis horrible by subjecting them to what they called "the Arabs" (fundamentalist Islamist terrorists) And still you want to make excuses? I must be some world you live in, filled with self righteous excuses.


<< The trap is a reference to Vietnam, the trap we were pulled into. You have no sense of history do you? >>

Yes, I know and it was sick to do so. Notice that Brezinski says NOTHING about helping Afghanistan, he makes it clear that the motive is to give the Soviets a "trap" YET YOU CREATE THIS IDEA that "we must have been doing it for the good of the Afghanis"! you really are to much.

As far as Vietnam, hasn't enough time past for you to finally come to terms with the fact that what the US did was outrageously wrong? The 1954 Geneva agreements did not "partition" Vietnam but separated two military zones by a temporary demarcation line that "should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary," pending the unification elections of 1956 that were the heart of the accords. Elections were supposed to be held, unifying the country. The Geneva agreement divided into two zones, not two countries; our government lied about this. The US backed Diem who refused to go through with the 1954 provision calling for nationwide elections in 1956. THIS is going against democracy! Why did Diem refuse? Because he knew as did others that he would lose the election, President Eisenhower said that Ho Chi Minh would win 90% of the vote in a free election. The CIA supported the repressive Vietnamese ruling the South--who were not only repressive but were also greedy. WE HAD NO RIGHT TO DO THIS! (The Vietnamese have a right to govern themselves and vote for the system they want!) We blocked elections in Vietnam because it was obvious Ho Chi Minh was going to win there. If the majority of the people wanted Ho Chi Min, we HAD NOT RIGHT to attack Vietnam to undermine their decisions. The Kennedy administration escalated the attack against South Vietnam from massive state terror to outright aggression in 1961-1962. We were not 'defending' South Vietnam. As Chomsky says, "I have never seen in thirty years that I have been looking carefully, one phrase even suggesting that we were not defending South Vietnam. Now, we weren't: we were attacking South Vietnam. We were attacking South Vietnam as clearly as any aggression in history. But try to find one phrase anywhere in any American newspaper, outside of real marginal publications, just stating that elementary fact. It's unstable." footnote #10Understanding Power Chapter 2 Footnotes

<< The US was fighting the spread of Communism, not attempting to spread fundamentalist Islam. >>


First of all, the Afghani system at the time was an incredible advancement for the Afghanis.
Second, the "fight against the spread of Communism" was immoral and outrageous. If people want a different system of government, they have the damn right to have one. The US has no right to attack foreign countries whose only "crime" is a different economic system.

<< Zbigniew Brzezinski was right. >>

You should be ashamed of yourself. After 9/11 your comment is really offensive, do you have ANY sense of decency?

You danced around the fact that the US inflicted Afghanistan with thousands of foreigners with a fundamentalist agenda. You don't want to admit it but yes the US did spread fundamentalist Islam.
You are in denial.

<< those silly muslims, they just didn't know what was best for them, they opposed secular Communism being forced on them, >>

Whoa, who the hell is "them"? Did you read the article or not? Did anyone ask us to topple the Afghani government using terrorism? Did anyone even ask us to topple the government by any means at all?
Where do you get this stuff that "the Muslims" wanted us to do what we did?

Even if you wanted to do something outrageous like change the political system against the wishes of the NATIVE people, Your "logic" that "gee whiz, I guess we have to use fundamentalists to do it" is CRAZY. Do you realize how insane it is what you are arguing? That is like looking at a certain situation in the US and making the leap of "guess we have to pump up the Mob to handle this".

After 9/11 can't you for a moment use your head and see the evil that the US inflicted on the Afghanis? Did you like the way 9/11 felt? No? Then why do you think the Afghanis would like it? YES the terrorists killed teachers and other civilians that were bringing modernity. GREAT JOB US PLANNERS!! It is a fact that the US recruited ex-Nazis, we can see that with the Afghanistan example US policy makers had no trouble using ruthless tactics for selfish goals. Did you miss the point Brzezinski never said the secret plan was to benefit the Afghanis? (You are too much the way you assume it "must have been for the benifit of the Afghanis since the US was doing it" EVEN AFTER YOU READ THE WORDS OF A MAIN PLANNER OF THE DIABOLICAL PLAN!!

what is this fanatical devotion to US policy makers? You really are incredibly brainwashed!! Even when you see the facts right in front of you, you can't stop falling over yourself making excuses for these men! Why? Because these men managed to get themselves into position of US policy making? So then the automatically become noble and good? You don't even mind being fed lies (like that we were responding to Soviet troops invading when the truth was we financed and trained terrorists to draw the Soviets in. why the hell are you going to start using your head?

Where do you get all these assumptions? Notice how that contrary to the lie you were fed, Brzezinski admits that the US was stirring up the fundamentalists BEFORE the Soviet troops were there. Their lies don't bother you huh? You continue along without skipping a beat. Seriously, it doesn't bother you that we were lied to? You totally ignored the massive deception!

<< Communism and leftists like Hitler killed more in the last century than we will ever know >>

Before WWII we supported Hitler in order to undermine Communism. And Hitler was not a "leftist".

<< Now you are saying in was the US who caused the USSR to invade Afghanistan? >>

Zbigniew Brzezinski: "Regret what? That secret operation [the CIA backing of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists] was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?"
Zbigniew Brzezinski: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" Quoting Zbigniew Brzezinski Jan, 1998*This interview was deleted from the version of Le Nouvel Observateur sent to the US) [this translation into English by Blum]
From 1977 to 1981, Zbigniew Brzezinski was National Security Advisor to the President of the United States.

<< You leftists are ...blah blah blah>> << If Communists drag stone age peoples into modern times, it's progressive, if Capitalist countries do the same, it's imperialistic. >>

Look, you were wrong. The Afghanis were making progress under their governments at the time. Are you totally detached from reality? The US wasn't bring modernity, THE US WAS SUPPORTING THE FUNDAMENTALIST AGENDA THAT BIN LADEN SHARES!! THe US was supporting fundamentalist terrorists. You can bury your head in the sand if you want but it doesn't change the facts.

<< That tells me a lot comrade. The good old USSR was just responding to our evil intentions, never having harmed a fly without the provocation of the "evil Americans." >>
Look, the overall effects of the Afghani government at that time were incredibly positive. Can you dispute the info I posted? No. So then you make an ass out of yourself by calling me "comrade"

The Afghanis had so many positive advancements under that government (did you read the info or not?). The CIA backed Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists with the goal of drawing the Russians into the "Afghan trap".
How nuts are you that you can't admit that yes THIS WAS EVIL TO DO!!

<< By the way, Carter was president 1976-1980, so most of what happened before 1980 was the responsibility of a Democratic regime, not Reagan >>
SO WHAT? Is this supposed to be some great revelation? Carter and Reagan were both corrupt. (I know, the idea that BOTH the Democrats and Republicans can be corrupt blows your little mind. I guess I am supposed to pick one of them then irrationally makes excuses for them right?)
Carter's NSA Brzezinski was a sick bastard. AND look at Reagan, he called these Fundamentalist Terrorists "freedom fighters"!! These terrorists were attacking the best chance the Afghanis ever had AND THE US WAS SUPPORTING THEM! Obviously you don't give a damn what was done to the Afghanis but I would think that after 9/11 you would get some sense of the evil we did to the Afghanis after the same kind of Fundamentalist Terrorists we inflicted on the Afghanis attacked us on 9/11. What the hell does it take for you to wake up?

<< Why is it that the media just lately has begun to bring up issues about Bush that we all knew a long time ago, but the media never used it against him during the last year? >>


Because it isn't about one man. The media is still operating within the parameters of the two major parties and those parties operate within parameters that the rich and powerful want.

So the media isn't telling the whole truth. When confronted with such a clear case of lies about WMD in front of everyone reporters are simply responding to that. what they haven't said is the war was illegal. what they haven't said is it violated US law as well since according to our Constitution a treaty we sigh becomes law of the land. O the media is still serving big power. the media is doing what it did in Vietnam, calling for the war to be fought better and worrying about some costs and lives. what the media hasn't done is show that it is indeed imperialism. examples don't make it into the nightly news. The main thing is those in power got the war they wanted and you notice that the top Democratic presidential candidates all want to continue the imperialism. Only Kucinich calls for an end to this and CNN gave him the least amount of time in the debates when supposedly they were to get equal time. The media is still serving the dominate forces. Enough time has passed since 9/11 that some feel more brave to nibble around the corners. Publishers were unwilling to publish a book like David Corn's a year a go. YET THE MEDIA HASN'T PICKED UP ON ONE OF THE LIES IN THE BOOK: Bush lied about why we were attacked. (this lie serves the dominate forces so it doesn't get exposure. ) The medai responds to power and Democrats have made the WMD an issue so it does get play. Even though the media questions WMD, notice the media isn't questioning the imperialism, the media plays along with the idea that the US has noble intentions.

<< I take it from this comment that you view the USSR's puppet government in Afghanistan in the 80s as "progressive"? That is the funniest thing I have ever heard. >>


That is because you haven't been exposed to the facts. First of all, I am talking about the government of Afghanistan before 1980. It is before 1980 that the US policy makers decided to support fundamentalist terrorists in order to destroy the Afghani Gov. and draw the USSR into Afghanistan.

Yes, the reforms the Afghanistan government were making were improving the lives of the Afganis. (that is progressive) The US inflicted them with misery.

"Afghanistan was a backward nation: a life expectancy of about 40, infant mortality of at least 25 percent, absolutely primitive sanitation, widespread malnutrition, illiteracy of more than 90 percent, very few highways, not one mile of railway, most people living in nomadic tribes or as impoverished farmers in mud villages, identifying more with ethnic groups than with a larger political concept, a life scarcely different from many centuries earlier.
    Reform with a socialist bent was the new government's ambition: land reform (while still retaining private property), controls on prices and profits, and strengthening of the public sector, as well as separation of church and state, eradication of illiteracy, legalization of trade unions, and the emancipation of women in a land almost entirely Muslim."-William Blum p339 Killing Hope

Yes, I call what the government was doing progressive compared to what it was and then what it became thanks to the US.

"The Afghan government was trying to drag the country into the 20th century. In May 1979, British political scientist Fred Halliday observed that "probably more has changed in the countryside over the last year than in the two centuries since the state was established." Peasant debts to landlords had been canceled, the system of usury (by which peasants, who were forced to borrow money against future crops, were left in perpetual debt to money-lenders) was abolished, and hundreds of schools and medical clinics were being built in the countryside."-William Blum p340 Killing Hope

 The new government reforms tackled issues like "Islamic subjugation of women by outlawing child marriage and the giving of a woman in marriage in exchange for money or commodities, and teaching women to read, at a time when certain Islamic sectors were openly calling for the reinforcement of purdah, the seclusion of women from public observation. Halliday noted that the People's Democratic Party saw the Soviet Union as the only realistic source of support for the long-overdue modernization.{7} The illiterate Afghan peasant's ethnic cousins across the border in the Soviet Union were, after all, often university graduates and professionals.
    The argument of the Moujahedeen ("holy warriors") rebels that the "communist" government would curtail their religious freedom was never borne out in practice. A year and a half after the change in government, the conservative British magazine The Economist reported that "no restrictions had been imposed on religious practice". -William Blum p340-341 Killing Hope

The people were definitely benefiting. WE TURNED IT INTO A FULL SCALE WAR ZONE. We supported terrorists whose goal was to undo the progress of the government. US policy makers plotted that if we backed these terrorist, the Soviets would be drawn into the conflict. (we subjected Afghanis to hell for purely political reasons of giving the Soviets a hard time)

"AFGHANISTAN 1979-1992 America's Jihad
His 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".{1}
    This did not prevent the United States government from showering the man with large amounts of aid to fight against the Soviet- supported government of Afghanistan. His name was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. He was the head of the Islamic Party and he hated the United States almost as much as he hated the Russians. His followers screamed "Death to America" along with "Death to the Soviet Union", only the Russians were not showering him with large amounts of aid.{2}
    The United States began supporting Afghan Islamic fundamentalists in 1979 despite the fact that in February of that year some of them had kidnapped the American ambassador in the capital city of Kabul, leading to his death in the rescue attempt."
From the chapter AFGHANISTAN 1979-1992 America's Jihadin Killing Hope by Willaim Blum

How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen 

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries

<< However, you just can't get around the fact that the policies Bin Laden said the US held that he objected to were WRONG! >>

No Cookie. You made this "fact" up. Show me a link where bin Laden complains about a policy that the UShas nothing to do with and says the US is to blame for it.

Just because bin Laden complains about a particular thing it doesn't mean that everything he complains about he is saying the US is at fault. Show me a link to your "proof."
<< Because I proved to you that Bin Laden was wrong >>
Again, no you haven't.

<< But the ONLY ones Bin Laden got right were our support for Israel and the fact we had a military presence in Saudi Arabia. All the others were wrong. >>

we don't prop up undemocratic and oppressive leaders?

<< That means it was NOT our policies that led to his desire to attack us after all. >>
this is not logical at all. If bin Laden mistakenly thought that the US was guilty of a specific policy and it turns out the US isn't, it doesn't mean he isn't reacting to what he thinks is US policies.
you seriously need to take a class in basic logic.
What you are saying doesn't make sense at all.
Bin Laden says and the FBI says that Al-Qeada are reacting to specific foreign polices.

<< that we need to alter our policies in favor of murderous thugs >>

Whoa whoa don't sell that crap here. The polices are wrong. Those polices are wrong whether we were attacked because of them or we weren't. The polices don't become good just because we were attacked over them.
Should we have never ended salver because some slaves dared to use terrorism? Use your head.
bin Laden said: "The Western regimes and the government of the US bear the blame for what might happen. If their people do not wish to be harmed inside their very own countries, they should seek to elect governments that are truly representative of them and that can protect their interests."
So does that mean we shouldn't seek to elect governments that are truly representative of our interets? ANSWER THAT PLEASE. SHould we not seek truly representative leaders since bin Laden called for us to do so?
GIVE ME AN ANSWER.

<< You are an apologist for Bin Laden >>

I never made excuses for bin Laden. The method (terrorism) and the governmental agenda is not something to support. The difference is I say is the method and governmental agenda was always something not to support. You guys make excuses for when the US supported the same agenda: funding and training terrorist to attack the progressive government of Afghanistan in order to establish a fundamentalist government.

Insisting on legal and moral actions from US policy makes is not "despising America." It is no more "despising America" than insisting that other members of our society obey the law and act morally. Is it "despising America" to point out that Enron was crooked? Of course not. Don't sell such a foolish idea that when people get into government that they must be excused for any actions they are responsible for.

Your tactic of labeling people that insist on proper and moral conduct in carrying out US polices of the government is really sick and stupid. Was it "despising America" to say that Clinton should not have lied? Of course not. For God sakes could you make a damn effort to act decently and honestly?
Bush lied to American about why we were attacked.

<< The U.S.-led occupation authority is taking initial steps toward selling off the first of Iraq (news - web sites)'s scores of state-owned companies to investors, but will stick to small enterprises until a sovereign Iraqi government takes over the job, >>


I hope people can see that this selling of these companies can certainly wait until the Iraqis themselves are running their own government. this is so oblious that I would hope everyone can see it. The life and death needs can be addressed now but there is no necessity to grab these companies. It is plunder by the powerful, pure and simple. It is insane to insist that these decisions can't wait until the Iraqis can make them for themselves.

MOST of the media is not making this clear to the public. This is imposing things on people and ripping them off. Kucinich saved his city Millions of dollars bt not doing what these guys are doing to Iraq. (part of the influence of the powerful is Kucinich isn't getting heard by most Americans)This is what our soldiers were used for.

On Sep 25, 2003, Paul Vitello, a Newsday collumnist, wrote an article called "For Bush, Truth Is Buried". Here are the opening paragraphs:

"The Washington Post ran the story on page 18, The New York Times on page 22, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post not at all last Friday, according to Editor & Publisher, the weekly magazine of the newspaper industry.

It was a story contradicting what almost 70 percent of Americans are said to believe about the metaphysics of Sept. 11 - namely that Saddam Hussein was personally involved.

Yet USA Today ran it on page 16.

Debunking this misperception was President George W. Bush himself, one of the people most responsible for planting it in Americans' heads in the first place: On that day, Bush said unequivocally - for the first time - that there was "no evidence" linking Hussein to the attacks."

I think Mr. Vitello thinks he is uncovering some failings of the media. The problem is it is far worse than he describes and his own article contains a falsehood that covers up the media's game in selling the war before it was started. here is my letter to him (I never received a reply)

Dear Mr. Vitello,

You wrote, "On that day, Bush said unequivocally - for the first time - that there was "no evidence" linking Hussein to the attacks."
This is incorrect. Bush made it clear at the White House on 31 January 2003.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

Of course it took a foreign reporter to ask the question because American reporters didn't want to ask it. And the question and answer was available to reporters just as it was available to me, US media CHOSE not to report it. Bush replied to the British reporter at the White House, American reporters were there. I think you underestimate how corrupt American media really is. Adam Boulton asked the question before the war, American reporters didn't and they ignored it when it was asked by Adam Boulton right in front of them, so the situation is worse than you describe it in your column.

The corruption is over the top. Take for example that Bush Lied to American about why we were attacked on 9/11. Not one mainstream reporter dared point out that Bush lied about the 9/11 terrorists' motives. Not one. How about you write a column about that? How about you make it clear to your readers that Bush lied when he said we were attacked because we are a "beacon of freedom." How about telling the public the truth, as the FBI testified before the Senate, we were attacked because of specific foreign polices. Bush serves the special interests that don't want the American public to question these policies. Bush robs Americans of the chance to decide for themselves if they wish to continue to be put in harms' way because of these specific foreign polices.

How about writing a column about this big lie? The American people deserve to know that the President lied to them. You can contact me about this. Visit my web page too:Bush lied about 9/11 terrorists' motives You will notice that Tenet goes out of his way to hide the motives:9/11 Intelligence Report. I hope you won't continue to "play the game" and instead report the truth.

<< Only when you start holding ALL other nations responsible for THEIR policies as well. >>
stop playing games. I hold ALL parties responsible. the thing you can't get into your head is the evil done by US policy makers. We don't have to guess or wonder about it becasue today we have the proof. You may need to sit down for this: records get declasssifed after a certain amount of time and now we know (those that actaully do the research) what the ugly realities have been.


[Noam Chomsky]  The United States , to its credit, is a very free country, maybe the freest country in the world in many respects. One result of that is that we have extremely rich internal documentation. We have a rich record of high level planning documents which tell us the answer to your question. And that’s an achievement of American democracy. However, almost nobody knows about it and that is a failure of democracy.


So the information is there. It’s in the scholarly literature. It’s in the declassified record ...

... [US policy makers] are concerned about, virtually quoting, the spread of the Castro idea of taking matters into one’s own hands which will have a lot of appeal to suffering and impoverished people around the hemisphere who are facing very similar problems. We [US policy makers] don’t want that idea to spread. If you go on in the declassified records, you find descriptions by the CIA and the intelligence agencies of how the problem with Cuba is what they call its successful defiance of US policies going back a hundred and fifty years. That’s a reference to the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine, which the US was not powerful enough to implement at the time, stated that the US would become the dominant force in this hemisphere and Cuba is not submitting to that. That is successful defiance of a policy that goes back a hundred and fifty years and that can’t be tolerated. They make it very clear. They are not worried about Cuban aggression or even subversion or anything. They are worried about Cuba ’s successful defiance and that’s not just Cuban. That’s common.
 

When the US overthrew the government of Guatemala in 1954 - again we have that rich record of declassified documents - what they explain is that the threat of Guatemala was that its the first democratic government had enormous popular support. It was mobilising the peasantry, instituting social reforms and this was likely to appeal to surrounding countries that might want to do the same thing. And that couldn’t be tolerated or else the whole framework of US domination of the hemisphere would collapse.
read it and take responsibility. Most Corrupt US Military Plan Ever: http://cryptome.org/jcs-corrupt.htm
Cookie11814, just becasue someone rapes or murders someone doesn't mean you have the right to do so. Wrong is wrong, it isn't conditional on first looking at every other wrong under the sun.

<< Sorry, but the original platform of the Ba'ath party did NOT include mass murder of their own citizens >>

Soory but that is not true. some of the mass graves are filled with people whose names the US handed over to the Baathists.
US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. Mr. Akins said, "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them".

"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.

"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".

do people deserve to be rounded up and shot becasue of their politics? The Nazis did the same thing. are you a Nazi?

OBL: We saw the Riyadh and al-Khobar bombing as a sufficient signal for people of intelligence among American decision-makers to avoid the real battle between the nation of Islam and the American forces, but it seems that they didn't understand the signal.

ABA: What was it intended to signify?

OBL: If they understood the signal it would mean withdrawing all troops from the region. We believe the American government has committed the greatest mistake in entering a peninsula that no religion from among the non-Muslim nations has entered for 14 centuries, despite the presence of imperialist troops in the region. They were all too awestruck to enter the region of the two holy places and remained on the edges, such as in Yemen and Oman.

The British and others used to respect the feelings of more than a billion Muslims, and therefore did not occupy the land of the two holy places, and America's interests were not harmed by it not entering it. The oil was sold to it - we are not going to drink it - and they were still able to impose a policy that depressed prices to an ideal level.

Their arrival [on the Arabian peninsula] was an aberration and a reckless act, for it brought them into confrontation with a nation numbering a billion Muslims.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,591810,00.html

Thomas Friedman is a dishonest manipulative bastard. Look how he attempts to deceive the American public about the motives behind the terrorism: Terrorists, he wrote in 1998 after terrorists attacked two US embassies in Africa, "have no specific ideological program or demands. Rather, they are driven by a generalized hatred of the US, Israel and other supposed enemies of Islam." This is bullshit. This is the same game that has been played by those that serve corrupt powers that create the terrorism backlash. When Nat Turner and fellow terrorists attacked in American in 1831, the press played the SAME GAME of denying what was behind the terrorism. Describing Nat Turner in 1831 the Richmond Enquirer wrote, "He was artful, impudent and vindicative, without any cause or provocation"
WITHOUT ANY CAUSE OR PROVOCATION!
It is the same game they play baout 9/11.