[lbo-talk] Re: Anybody But Kerry the Dole of 2004?

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Chomsky on Afghanistan.] The major issues scarcely even arose, beginning
with the obvious one: What is the justification for bombing Afghanistan?
The official reason, announced when the bombing began, was that
Afghanistan was refusing to turn over Osama bin Laden to the US
(overthrowing the Taliban regime was an afterthought, added after several
weeks of bombing). The people of Afghanistan was informed that they would
be bombed until the Taliban accepted this demand. Taliban requests for
evidence were dismissed with ridicule, as were tentative offers of
extradition. Eight months later, the head of the FBI testified to the
Senate that the US still did not know who was responsible for 9-11. US
intelligence "believed" that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, but
implemented and financed elsewhere. In brief, US intelligence confirmed
that the bombing of Afghanistan was the "supreme crime" condemned at
Nuremberg: violent aggression, without credible pretext.

On Fri, 7 May 2004 snitilicious at tampabay.rr.com wrote:


> well, not to rehearse the ancient battle that occurred in the months
> post 911, but doll, the special forces were in Afghanistan and Iraq
> before 9.11.  So was the CIA. There were stories that we didn't have
> good intelligence on the ground and all that hoo ha. Not so. We were
> already there, infiltrating al Qaeda, the Taliban, and various outfits
> in Iraq.
> 
> If some terrorist outfit is holed up in the inaccessible mountains of
> Afghanistan, how do you get inside Afghanistan if Afghanistan doesn't
> want you in? Before 911 Clinton shot 66 missiles at the mountins
> trying to al Qaeda. They were doing it with technology that let them
> track ObL's movements as if you could see him across the street.
> 
> If you hear about something coming down the pike, and the guys you're
> after are in Pakistan, how do you get Pakistan to let you in their
> country to hunt them down. Oh, you use Pakistani police? Who's gonna
> pay for it? And are you just letting some other country's cops do the
> dirty (terrorizing) work?
> 
> Basically, I just think that the juridico-legal answer seems nicer
> because no one's really thought about how you go after terrorists. As
> we speak, I know of a few people who are sitting around with a bunch
> of futuritsts, technologists, the NSC, NSA, FBI, CIA, etc talking
> about the future of warfare using new tech and new warfare tactics. I
> shit you not.