SPELLCHEK – If a word in the dictionary were misspelled, how would we know? – Steven Wright

Afghanistan bombing began 11 years ago today Oct. 7, 2001

U.S. bombing strikes of Afghanistan began 11 years ago today. The narrative has always been that this was in response to the 9/11 attacks. Do even some cursory research and you’ll find a plethora of evidence supporting the fact that the U.S. had pre-planned an Afghanistan invasion prior to 9/11. Read about Operation Steppe Shield. Read “The War on Freedom” by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed. Read “The Grand Chessboard” by Zbigniew Brzezinski. There’s plenty more if you’re interested. Fact is the Taliban refused to provide the stability required to develop access to the country’s natural resources which had been known about for many years despite news reports claiming this was a recent discovery. All 9/11 accomplished as far as Afghanistan is concerned is step up the timetable. When you consider the entire book of evidence it will then make sense as to why we are still in Afghanistan after so many years. You’ve been told it was simply to eradicate the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and Usama Bin Laden. That was only part of the bigger picture which is known as the “New Great Game” for the regions natural resources.

If you’re interested in finding out more, here are a few of my research sources to get you started.
























Posted in:

5 responses to “Afghanistan bombing began 11 years ago today Oct. 7, 2001”

  1. Wow! You have been a busy little beaver. I have bookmarked this page so i can read all of those linked sources. I don’t doubt your thesis for a moment. Strategic thinking and the development of options or scnarios has been going on for many decades. america has not always cried through with them. If we had, our companies would be pumping oil in Saudi Arabia and other Middle-East countries. To be honest, I don’t like what you are suggesting. I’m no shrinking violet; but there are ways to use ones power that are more moral than others. (maybe less immoral would be more correct) As i argued here in an earier post, the “war on terror” is stupid. How does one reconcile fighting a war on terror on the soil of other soverign nations? After 9/11, the US should have given the Afghans 30 days to deliver bin Laden and his top aids. When they didn’t, we should have made war against Afghanistan. When the strategic thinkers said “Oh by the way there are x,y, and z resources there that we need access to”, the military should say “Oh, okay”. They then do exactly what they did to hunt hown and kill the Taliban and al Qaeda and force the Afghan government to the negotiating table when the time is right (like about eight years ago). we tell them that they will sign 99 year leases to American compnaies and will be paid a fair royalty for x. y, and z resources. That to me is a more moraluse of power than this cloak and dagger bullcrap and spending blood and treasure fo 11+ years and thn say “Oh, by the way”. When the US decides there is no strategic interest other than to stop aggression, then Bush the First did it right. We go in. Kick ass. Come home.

  2. Wow! You have been a busy little beaver

    Ha, sounds like a I need to get a life remark. Sad part is I have at least a couple dozen more sources I didn’t include.

    To be honest, I don’t like what you are suggesting

    I’m only suggesting what the evidence shows, that we we’re already going into Afghanistan after the Taliban before 9/11 ever happened. Global market access to natural resources is absolutely considered a national defense concern. We saw the Taliban as unreliable, perhaps even making a deal with Russia or China, and shutting us out so we gave them the ultimatum. I’d bet the house that Bin Laden was considered an unnecessary distraction by the Taliban as his fight was not the same as that of the Taliban. For our purposes, it made sense to lump in the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden together under the umbrella of the global war on terror. We had a free pass for attacking Afghanistan which we were already planning.

    The bottom line is that 2,000 American soldiers lives sells better under the war on terror than it does on the war to secure natural resources access even though we consider both vital to national security. How moral is that?

%d bloggers like this: