Taliban Still Denies 9/11 Involvement, Says Was “Excuse” for War on 20th Anniversary

[easyt65]

They have actually been very consistent.

Taliban Still Denies 9/11 Involvement, Says Was “Excuse” for War on 20th Anniversary

As the crisis in Afghanistan unfolds, a Taliban spokesman has followed up on bin Laden’s repeated denial of involvement in 9/11, and said it was blamed on him by the US as an “excuse fo…

coronanews123.wordpress.com

Bill Clinton STILL says, "I did not have sex with that woman"....he remains pretty consistent. What's your point?

 

[Rigby5]

What, who was building stone domes?

Europe was the last to become civilized.
Aryans likely started out around Iran or India, and slowly migrated northwest, to Europe eventually.
The Celts for example, ended up in Spain and Ireland.
But they did not end their nomadic ways and start building permanent structures until the Roman occupations.

In comparison, those of the Mideast were thousands of years ahead of Europe.

{...
Small domes in corbelled stone or brick over round-plan houses go back to the Neolithic period in the ancient Near East, and served as dwellings for poorer people throughout the prehistoric period, but domes did not play an important role in monumental architecture.[15] The discoveries of seal impressions in the ancient site of Chogha Mish (c. 6800 to 3000 BC), located in the Susiana plains of Iran, in the vicinity of the modern city of Dezful in Khuzestan province, show the extensive use of dome structures in mud-brick and adobe buildings, likely granaries.[16] Other examples of mud-brick buildings that also seemed to employ the "true" dome technique have been excavated at Tell Arpachiyah, a Mesopotamian site of the Halaf (c. 6100 to 5400 BC) and Ubaid (ca. 5300 to 4000 BC) cultures.[17] Excavations at Tell al-Rimah have revealed pitched-brick domical vaults from about 2000 BC.[18]

At the Sumerian Royal Cemetery of Ur, a "complete rubble dome built over a timber centring" was found among the chambers of the tombs for Meskalamdug and Puabi, dating to around 2500 BC.[19] Set in mud mortar, it was a "true dome with pendentives rounding off the angles of the square chamber." Other small domes can be inferred from the remaining ground plans, such as one in the courtyard of Ur-Nammu's ziggurat, and in later shrines and temples of the 14th century BC.[20] Some monumental Mesopotamian buildings of the Kassite period are thought to have had brick domes, but the issue is unsettled due to insufficient evidence in what has survived of these structures.[15]

A Neo-Assyrian bas-relief from Kuyunjik depicts domed buildings, although remains of such a structure in that ancient city have yet to be identified, perhaps due to the impermanent nature of sun-dried mudbrick construction.[21][22] However, because the relief depicts the Assyrian overland transport of a carved stone statue, the background buildings most likely refer to a foreign village, such as those at the foothills of the Lebanese mountains. The relief dates to the 8th century BC, while the use of domical structures in the Syrian region may go back as far as the fourth millennium BC.[23] Likewise, domed houses at Shulaveri in Georgia and Khirokitia, Cyprus, date back to around 6000 BC.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

Bill Clinton STILL says, "I did not have sex with that woman"....he remains pretty consistent. What's your point?

No, Bill admitted to oral sex, but in the actual case, Bill had forced the prosecutor to define "sex", and since he used a genital penetration definition, Bill then did not technically lie when he denied it at the time.

But we KNOW the Taliban are innocent.
We intercept all the communications they have ever sent to each other, so we KNOW that bin Laden was a loose cannon they arrested several times.
They wanted him out of the country, and it was likely the CIA who kept paying bribes for him to be able to stay.

 

[struth]

Its their country, and we are the law breakers in this case.

oh what law did we break?

 

[AMart]

Europe was the last to become civilized.
Aryans likely started out around Iran or India, and slowly migrated northwest, to Europe eventually.
The Celts for example, ended up in Spain and Ireland.
But they did not end their nomadic ways and start building permanent structures until the Roman occupations.

In comparison, those of the Mideast were thousands of years ahead of Europe.

{...
Small domes in corbelled stone or brick over round-plan houses go back to the Neolithic period in the ancient Near East, and served as dwellings for poorer people throughout the prehistoric period, but domes did not play an important role in monumental architecture.[15] The discoveries of seal impressions in the ancient site of Chogha Mish (c. 6800 to 3000 BC), located in the Susiana plains of Iran, in the vicinity of the modern city of Dezful in Khuzestan province, show the extensive use of dome structures in mud-brick and adobe buildings, likely granaries.[16] Other examples of mud-brick buildings that also seemed to employ the "true" dome technique have been excavated at Tell Arpachiyah, a Mesopotamian site of the Halaf (c. 6100 to 5400 BC) and Ubaid (ca. 5300 to 4000 BC) cultures.[17] Excavations at Tell al-Rimah have revealed pitched-brick domical vaults from about 2000 BC.[18]

At the Sumerian Royal Cemetery of Ur, a "complete rubble dome built over a timber centring" was found among the chambers of the tombs for Meskalamdug and Puabi, dating to around 2500 BC.[19] Set in mud mortar, it was a "true dome with pendentives rounding off the angles of the square chamber." Other small domes can be inferred from the remaining ground plans, such as one in the courtyard of Ur-Nammu's ziggurat, and in later shrines and temples of the 14th century BC.[20] Some monumental Mesopotamian buildings of the Kassite period are thought to have had brick domes, but the issue is unsettled due to insufficient evidence in what has survived of these structures.[15]

A Neo-Assyrian bas-relief from Kuyunjik depicts domed buildings, although remains of such a structure in that ancient city have yet to be identified, perhaps due to the impermanent nature of sun-dried mudbrick construction.[21][22] However, because the relief depicts the Assyrian overland transport of a carved stone statue, the background buildings most likely refer to a foreign village, such as those at the foothills of the Lebanese mountains. The relief dates to the 8th century BC, while the use of domical structures in the Syrian region may go back as far as the fourth millennium BC.[23] Likewise, domed houses at Shulaveri in Georgia and Khirokitia, Cyprus, date back to around 6000 BC.
...}

Your prior civilization post was about Islam which was founded in the 7th century why are you posting about ancient times in the Middle East or W. Asia?

 

[Rigby5]

oh what law did we break?

Just about every international law there is, and quite a few US laws as well.
Afghanistan was a sovereign nation under the Taliban, whether the US decided to recognize them or not.
So it is illegal extortion to threaten them with force to hand over a protected legal inhabitant without providing a shred of extradition evidence.
Then we illegally started bombing, committing 1st degree murder.

Since the Taliban were so popular, we deprived an entire nation of their democratic representation.

Since Congress ratified the UN charter in 1945, it has always been illegal to use military force.
If we thought the Taliban were protecting bin Laden after he was involved in the attacks, the only legal venue was the UN and international courts.
Bypassing the law and attacking the Taliban was totally and completely criminal.

 

[Rigby5]

Your prior civilization post was about Islam which was founded in the 7th century why are you posting about ancient times in the Middle East or W. Asia?

Islam was a minor improvement in theology, and otherwise insignificant.
The point is that almost all classical knowledge, from mathematics to astronomy, came from the mideast.
Europe was certainly not leading edge, but just barely catching up.

And the US is backsliding to become even more primitive than Europe, with our irrational support for the Old Testament Israel.

 

[struth]

Just about every international law there is, and quite a few US laws as well.
Afghanistan was a sovereign nation under the Taliban, whether the US decided to recognize them or not.
So it is illegal extortion to threaten them with force to hand over a protected legal inhabitant without providing a shred of extradition evidence.
Then we illegally started bombing, committing 1st degree murder.

Since the Taliban were so popular, we deprived an entire nation of their democratic representation.

Since Congress ratified the UN charter in 1945, it has always been illegal to use military force.
If we thought the Taliban were protecting bin Laden after he was involved in the attacks, the only legal venue was the UN and international courts.
Bypassing the law and attacking the Taliban was totally and completely criminal.

hahaha no...

When a country gives aid and cover to a terrorist organization that attacks a country (USA) killing 3k people....that country (the vicitm) has every right to attack.

I tell you what though, why don't you get some lawyers to represent the Taliban and take us to court...hahahaah

No the UN Charter does not prevent a country in the UN from going to war or defending itself.

It should however be noted that four of the five permenant members of the UN Security Council were involved in the war

 

[Rigby5]

hahaha no...

When a country gives aid and cover to a terrorist organization that attacks a country (USA) killing 3k people....that country (the vicitm) has every right to attack.

I tell you what though, why don't you get some lawyers to represent the Taliban and take us to court...hahahaah

No the UN Charter does not prevent a country in the UN from going to war or defending itself.

It should however be noted that four of the five permenant members of the UN Security Council were involved in the war

Wrong.
If you think your neighbor stole your lawn mower, does that give you the right to attack his home?

The law is clear, military force is only legal when used in immediate defense against an attack in progress, or if the UN authorizes it.

The permanent members of the UN Security Council are: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Only 2 of those were involved in the illegal attacks on Iraq or Afghanistan.

{...
The United Nations Charter is the foundation of modern international law.[15] The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and its principal coalition allies in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which are therefore legally bound by its terms. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally bans the use of force by states except when carefully circumscribed conditions are met, stating:

All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.[16]

This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General International Commission of Jurists.[17]

Therefore, in the absence of an armed attack against the US or the coalition members, any legal use of force, or any legal threat of the use of force, had to be supported by a UN security Council resolution authorizing member states to use force against Iraq
...}

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But clearly the Taliban and Saddam did NOT give any aid to any terrorist organization, and anyone claiming they did is just a liar.

 

[struth]

Wrong.
If you think your neighbor stole your lawn mower, does that give you the right to attack his home?

The law is clear, military force is only legal when used in immediate defense against an attack in progress, or if the UN authorizes it.

The permanent members of the UN Security Council are: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Only 2 of those were involved in the illegal attacks on Iraq or Afghanistan.

{...
The United Nations Charter is the foundation of modern international law.[15] The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and its principal coalition allies in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which are therefore legally bound by its terms. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally bans the use of force by states except when carefully circumscribed conditions are met, stating:


This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General International Commission of Jurists.[17]

Therefore, in the absence of an armed attack against the US or the coalition members, any legal use of force, or any legal threat of the use of force, had to be supported by a UN security Council resolution authorizing member states to use force against Iraq
...}

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But clearly the Taliban and Saddam did NOT give any aid to any terrorist organization, and anyone claiming they did is just a liar.

what law are you referring to?

and 9/11 was an attack...we were allowed to defend ourselves geez...

I am not sure what the link to the Iraq War has to do with this current topic.

You do realize we are discussing Afgan right?

 

[Rigby5]

what law are you referring to?

and 9/11 was an attack...we were allowed to defend ourselves geez...

I am not sure what the link to the Iraq War has to do with this current topic.

You do realize we are discussing Afgan right?

The "law" we are referring to is the UN Charter that became US law once ratified by Congress.
The 9/11 attack killed all of its attackers, so there was no need or way to defend from that.
The Iraq was was over the same 9/11 attack, with the exact same pretext and was illegal according to the exact same law.

Law means you accuse, go to court, and present evidence.
You don't start bombing.
That is not law, but unlawful vigilantism.
And in this case, totally wrong and against innocent victims of illegal US aggression.

 

[easyt65]

But we KNOW the Taliban are innocent.

'We' KNOW?

BULLSHIT. We KNOW the terrorists used damn-near untraceable phones and switched to new phones frequently. It was not until we raided UBL in Pakistan where many cells were located, what communications systems and phones they were using, erc...

WE did NOT know shit and did NOT intercept all of their communications!

We KNOW a bunch of terrorists who gave safe haven to the same Al Qaeda and ISUS terrorists they just freed, the same terrorists who facilitated their attack on the US that resulted in the deaths of 13 service members, CLAIM they had no part in 9/11...

...and that's good enough for YOU.

 

[Donald H]

The wise money is bettiing on the US attempting to form an alliance with the Taliban in the interestt of fighting ISIS and other common enemies.
Could it be that the US purposely left behind enough military equipment for the Taliban to form the basis of a fighting force?

 

[struth]

The "law" we are referring to is the UN Charter that became US law once ratified by Congress.
The 9/11 attack killed all of its attackers, so there was no need or way to defend from that.
The Iraq was was over the same 9/11 attack, with the exact same pretext and was illegal according to the exact same law.

Law means you accuse, go to court, and present evidence.
You don't start bombing.
That is not law, but unlawful vigilantism.
And in this case, totally wrong and against innocent victims of illegal US aggression.

The UN Charter only sets up the UN. That’s all we ratfified when we did that.

The folks that organized and planed 9/11 were still out there, in Afghan being aided any the Taliban

 

[McFury]

Wrong.
If you think your neighbor stole your lawn mower, does that give you the right to attack his home?

The law is clear, military force is only legal when used in immediate defense against an attack in progress, or if the UN authorizes it.

The permanent members of the UN Security Council are: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Only 2 of those were involved in the illegal attacks on Iraq or Afghanistan.

{...
The United Nations Charter is the foundation of modern international law.[15] The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and its principal coalition allies in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which are therefore legally bound by its terms. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally bans the use of force by states except when carefully circumscribed conditions are met, stating:


This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General International Commission of Jurists.[17]

Therefore, in the absence of an armed attack against the US or the coalition members, any legal use of force, or any legal threat of the use of force, had to be supported by a UN security Council resolution authorizing member states to use force against Iraq
...}

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But clearly the Taliban and Saddam did NOT give any aid to any terrorist organization, and anyone claiming they did is just a liar.

Everything you said is complete bullshit.
Do you take us for imbeciles?
Have you even served in Afghanistan?
I don't think so.
The Taliban are savages not human beings.
They would kill an American in a second.
You never served.
If you did you would not be defending those savages.
Uneducated, uncivilized stupid tribes.
All they know is war and Heroin.
We should have left them alone.
20 years ago.
Just strike them from the sky.

 

[Rigby5]

'We' KNOW?

BULLSHIT. We KNOW the terrorists used damn-near untraceable phones and switched to new phones frequently. It was not until we raided UBL in Pakistan where many cells were located, what communications systems and phones they were using, erc...

WE did NOT know shit and did NOT intercept all of their communications!

We KNOW a bunch of terrorists who gave safe haven to the same Al Qaeda and ISUS terrorists they just freed, the same terrorists who facilitated their attack on the US that resulted in the deaths of 13 service members, CLAIM they had no part in 9/11...

...and that's good enough for YOU.

Wrong.
If we had not been intercepting their calls, we would not have known to arrest Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
The Taliban never gave safe haven to anyone.
The Taliban tolerated al Qaeda because the CIA insisted.
The Taliban always hated Arabs and that included al Qaeda.
And there were never any ISIS in Afghanistan.
The CIA created ISIS in Iraq, not Afghanistan.
ISIS got to Afghanistan because we had driven the Taliban out.

 

[Rigby5]

The UN Charter only sets up the UN. That’s all we ratfified when we did that.

The folks that organized and planed 9/11 were still out there, in Afghan being aided any the Taliban

Wrong.
The UN charter clearly says:
{...

Article 2​

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
...

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
...}

The US ratified the entire UN charter, which essentially makes war illegal except in defense if under attack, and if the US decides to act.

 

[Rigby5]

Everything you said is complete bullshit.
Do you take us for imbeciles?
Have you even served in Afghanistan?
I don't think so.
The Taliban are savages not human beings.
They would kill an American in a second.
You never served.
If you did you would not be defending those savages.
Uneducated, uncivilized stupid tribes.
All they know is war and Heroin.
We should have left them alone.
20 years ago.
Just strike them from the sky.

Anyone from the US who served in Afghanistan is an ignorant savage.
The Taliban were our allies against the Soviets, and they never supported terrorism.
We lied.
It was the CIA who supported heroin, just like they did in Laos.
The Taliban were constantly fighting against heroin.
The most ignorant people are the ones from the US who can't even tell who the liars are.
The Taliban never lied.
We did.

 

[struth]

Wrong.
The UN charter clearly says:
{...

Article 2​

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
...

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
...}

The US ratified the entire UN charter, which essentially makes war illegal except in defense if under attack, and if the US decides to act.

noting you quoted makes war iillegal

iver the UN approved of it

 

[easyt65]

Wrong.
If we had not been intercepting their calls, we would not have known to arrest Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
The Taliban never gave safe haven to anyone.
The Taliban tolerated al Qaeda because the CIA insisted.
The Taliban always hated Arabs and that included al Qaeda.
And there were never any ISIS in Afghanistan.
The CIA created ISIS in Iraq, not Afghanistan.
ISIS got to Afghanistan because we had driven the Taliban out.

Informants, CIA Agents, along with cell phones, but that doesn't mean we track everything and / or know everything. Again, when we took down UBL we found a treasure trove of data giving us the identities and locations of several cells, information we did not have before despite all of that.

If you / the OP are trying to make the argument that the Taliban,who gave safe haven to Al Qaeda and ISIS prior to 9/11, were / are innocent choir boys/ poppy-growing camel salesmen who were falsely accused and attacked 20 years ago you're full of shit.

The Taliban beheaded an American. They surrounded the airport as we were trying to leave. They set up checkpoints, blocked Americans trying to make it to the airport, beat up Americans. They freed thousands of tge worst, most violent Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Taliban terrorists. They seized control of Jabul after Biden refused to take and secure it. They allowed those terrorists to kill 13 Americans and murder/wound over 100 more. They allowed tge terrorists to shoot at planes coming in and leaving Kabul and to attack the airport.

Yeah, they're not terrorists.

In case you could not tell, that was some SERIOUS sarcasm...