What are we fighting for?

Written By: notices and features - Date published: 2:30 pm, July 28th, 2009 - 60 comments
Categories: afghanistan, articles - Tags:

A reader sent through this article from the Guardian by Malalai Joya, who was the youngest woman to enter the Afghan parliament before being suspended for denouncing the warlords and war criminals sitting beside her.

Almost eight years after the Taliban regime was toppled, our hopes for a truly democratic and independent Afghanistan have been betrayed by the continued domination of fundamentalists and by a brutal occupation that ultimately serves only American strategic interests in the region.

You must understand that the government headed by Hamid Karzai is full of warlords and extremists who are brothers in creed of the Taliban. Many of these men committed terrible crimes against the Afghan people during the civil war of the 1990s.

For expressing my views I have been expelled from my seat in parliament, and I have survived numerous assassination attempts. The fact that I was kicked out of office while brutal warlords enjoyed immunity from prosecution for their crimes should tell you all you need to know about the “democracy” backed by Nato troops.

She then calls on Western countries to end the occupation and stop supporting the corrupt warlords in power:

This week, US vice-president Joe Biden asserted that “more loss of life [is] inevitable” in Afghanistan, and that the ongoing occupation is in the “national interests” of both the US and the UK.

I have a different message to the people of Britain. I don’t believe it is in your interests to see more young people sent off to war, and to have more of your taxpayers’ money going to fund an occupation that keeps a gang of corrupt warlords and drug lords in power in Kabul.

What’s more, I don’t believe it is inevitable that this bloodshed continues forever. Some say that if foreign troops leave Afghanistan will descend into civil war. But what about the civil war and catastrophe of today? The longer this occupation continues, the worse the civil war will be.

Food for thought at a time when John Key is considering sending more New Zealand troops to Afghanistan.

60 comments on “What are we fighting for? ”

Comments are now closed

Gosman 1

28 July 2009 at 3:26 pm

The US led action in afghanistan has been handled a lot better, and has a lot more legitimacy than the bungled invasion of Iraq. The forces that took over from the Taliban were Afghan who had been fighting against the Taliban for a number of years. The steps to legitimise the new regime were also commendable with the calling of a traditional Afghani meeting to confirm the set up. On top of this there have been a number of UN resolutions that have provided the legal basis for the multinational forces involvement in the country,

This is not to say that there are not some serious issues that need resolving. Yes there is corruption and the involvement of unsavourary characters in the Kazai government. The Government is extremely weak and fragile and the Taliban is resurgent in parts of the country.

This does not mean the best option is to cut and run and forget about the place. Essentially this is the policy that the West followed after the Soviets pulled out in the late 1980’s. This led to the situation in 2001 where it was used as a base to launch attacks against the US by Al Qaida.

Now I know there are some who think that leaving Afghanistan will mean that it able to develop into a nice peaceful liberal democracy however I think this is Pollyannaish thinking in the extreme. Taking a leaf out of effective counter insurgency strategies in the past, (e.g. in Malaya during the 1950’s and 1960’s), requires a strong security arrangement while political reforms are implemented and the locals by in to the new set up.

It is in the West’s, and therefore NZ, interest to ensure this is achieved in Afghanistan otherwise it will be used as a base for future attacks by anti-western groups as it was previously.
- BLiP 1.1
  
  28 July 2009 at 3:41 pm
  
  Isn’t that why Kiwi blood was spilled in that other monument to American millitary leadership, Vietnam. So, if we don’t go slaughter Afghan women and children and bomb their schools and hospitals, weddings and market places we’ll find the taliban armed with rocket launchers strolling down Courtney Place and, since we dissed the yanks, they’ll abandon us again – a bit like when they abandoned us after getting advance notice about the French Government bombing of the Rainbow Warrior.
  
  Ironic that the only terrorism suffered by New Zealand came from “the West”. Unless you want to count the Urewera Freedom Fighters. Woooooo – spoooky!
BLiP 2

28 July 2009 at 3:30 pm

What are we fighting for?

Global US corporate hedgemony.
- Gosman 2.1
  
  28 July 2009 at 3:38 pm
  
  That reminds me of when I was at University in the early 1990’s and I used to read Bolshevik party material regarding the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.
  
  The gist of the articles was that the break up of Yugoslavia was all a nefarious plot by capitalists to gain control over the vital resources in the Balkans.
  
  The fact that most of the Balkans was, and still remains, and economic backwater never entered into the thinking for some reason. It also ignored the terrible human rights abuses that were carried out by all sides while the West largely sat by and did nothing.
  
  It took the US led attacks on the Serbs in 1995 and again in 1999 to begin to sort that mess out. But perhaps that was all part of the secretive capitalist conspirtacy to grasp the valuable resources of the region?
  - Bill 2.1.1
    
    28 July 2009 at 3:56 pm
    
    1999 was NATO led. 78 days and over 2000 dead civilians plus about a million displaced. Then came the neo liberal reforms.
    
    You call that sorting out a mess?
    - Gosman 2.1.1.1
      
      28 July 2009 at 4:07 pm
      
      What you failed to mention there was the almost 2 million ethnic Albanians that were forceably evicted from Kosovo. You might argue that these people would not have been evicted if NATO had not got involved but you can’t deny that they were being systematically oppressed by the Serbian regime.
      - BLiP 2.1.1.1.1
        
        28 July 2009 at 5:28 pm
        
        So why aren’t you in Zimbabwe then . . . oh, that’s right, no strategic advantage and no oil. Silly me. Carry on, what were you saying?
        
        hahahaha Captcha: petrol.
        
        The Sysop has got to be winding up the commentators with these catchas?
- Bill 2.2
  
  28 July 2009 at 3:46 pm
  
  “What are we fighting for?”
  
  List the companies that will benefit from oil, oil pipeline contracts and associated infrastructure construction/maintenance projects and you’ve got your answer.
  
  Or maybe you prefer to believe it’s all for dumbocracy democracy and the greater terror good?
  
  Whatever.
  
  Maybe one day we’ll stop ripping one another part for the benefit of our respective masters, but probably not. Wave a flag, wave a cause and watch us all come running master.
  
  edit. strikeout code doesn’t seem to work. I’m sure you can figure it though.
  - Gosman 2.2.1
    
    28 July 2009 at 3:59 pm
    
    I seem to remember that some claimed the breakup of Yugoslavia was all about oil and pipelines as well.
    
    Why can’t you accept that some things are done for the reasons that are stated?
    
    The Taliban regime was sheltering a terrorist organisation that was strongly suspected of organising and carrying out one of the worst Terrorist attacks against Civillian targets in the West, (certainly in the US). They weren’t going to hand them over so the US supported the domestic opposition to them in the country and over threw them.
    
    Once the Taliban were ousted the UN was engaged to try and rebuild the country after decades of conflict and a NaTO led force has beed tasked by the UN to help provide security while the Afghans get on their feet.
    
    Even if the current Afghan government took complete control and was successful in keeping the Taliban out of power I wouldn’t be keen to invest the billions necessary to build a pipeline there if I was in charge of a multinational oil company. Something that your rather simplistic analysis seems to ignore.
    - BLiP 2.2.1.1
      
      28 July 2009 at 4:35 pm
      
      Why can’t you accept that some things are done for the reasons that are stated?
      
      Weapons. Mass. Destruction.
      - Gosman 2.2.1.1.1
        
        28 July 2009 at 4:40 pm
        
        I think even the most rabid Right winger would acknowledge that justifications behind the War in Iraq were seriously flawed. However that does not mean that every military involvement has some nefarious and secret reason behind it.
    - Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.2
      
      28 July 2009 at 4:41 pm
      
      They weren’t going to hand them over…
      
      From here:
      
      After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.
      
      GWB’s response?
      
      “When I said no negotiations I meant no negotiations,” Mr Bush said. “We know he’s guilty. Turn him over. There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt.”
      
      The really telling bit about the quote from GWB is that they don’t know that he did it. They don’t have the proof. He was only suspected of the attacks on the WTC and the Taliban had every right to ask that proof be supplied before they handed him over.
      
      Even if the current Afghan government took complete control and was successful in keeping the Taliban out of power I wouldn’t be keen to invest the billions necessary to build a pipeline there if I was in charge of a multinational oil company. Something that your rather simplistic analysis seems to ignore.
      
      I’d be more inclined if the safety of that pipeline was going to be guaranteed by the US.
      - Gosman 2.2.1.2.1
        
        28 July 2009 at 4:55 pm
        
        Once again another conspiracy theorist comes out with views that Osama bin Ladin was not connected with the attacks on September 11th 2001.
        
        Funny for someone who has been wrongly accused of one of the worst terrorist attacks against a civilian target in the West he seems to be remarkably happy to keep quiet about this in his video and audio recordings released since that time.
        
        I also love the implication that the Taliban regime was some reasonable and rational Government that was just trying to follow due process rather than some brutal and backward Islamic theocracy that supported an extremely aggressive view of Islam and was happy to host a number of training camps for an organisation that was dedicated to confronting and attacking the West.
        
        Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.2.1.1
        
        28 July 2009 at 5:16 pm
        
        I’m just pointing out some facts. You’re the one trying to discredit them.
        
        Due process would have been a better option than kneejerk war. It may still have gone to war but at least effort would have been expended in trying to prevent it.
        
        BLiP 2.2.1.2.1.2
        
        28 July 2009 at 5:19 pm
        
        Now you’ve lost any credibility you might have been able to salvage after your education here at The Standard. You have been captured by a subset of the very same band of nutters you rail against in your comment above.
        
        There has been wide and repeated coverage from any number of reputable US and international news agencies that the Osama-911 connection is bullshit. Even Osama’s FBI page makes no mention of 911. Perhaps you know something we don’t or maybe you are getting blogging instructions from HQ.
        
        Tim Ellis 2.2.1.2.1.3
        
        28 July 2009 at 6:18 pm
        
        Speaking of nutters, you probably want to have a look at http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Bin_Laden's_FBI_Ten_Most_Wanted_poster which debunks the myth that there is no evidence linking Bin Laden with the 911 attacks.
        
        Some of the most compelling evidence, apart from the piles of intelligence data, is that Bin Laden himself has repeatedly claimed responsibility for the attacks.
        
        BLiP 2.2.1.2.1.4
        
        28 July 2009 at 6:35 pm
        
        Interesting. I admit to having just popped that into my comment to Secret Agent Gosman having heard it before but not thoroughly checking. The site you link to appears, on the surface, to be relatively neutral about it all and doesn’t actually come out and say Osama was involved, just implies it with the usual unsourced circumstantial bits and pieces. Still seems odd that despite exhaustive government and private investigations there remains no evidence of Osama’s direct involvement and, thus, no formal charges. I guess Dubya didn’t torture enough innocents to get what he needed. Its hardly surprising Osama claiming credit and, sure, he’s one bad bugger but if you really think Osama was behind 911, you’re nuttier than the canteen at Number One The Terrace.
        
        Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.2.1.5
        
        28 July 2009 at 8:05 pm
        
        is that Bin Laden himself has repeatedly claimed responsibility for the attacks.
        
        Yes Tim, I’ve seen the tapes where he supposedly confesses to the attack. I’ve always wondered why the person in those tapes doesn’t look anything like the Osama Bin Laden in the other tapes we have of him.
      - BLiP 2.2.1.2.2
        
        29 July 2009 at 1:16 am
        
        Here’s Dick Cheney saying that the Bush administration has never made the case that Osama was responsible for 911. Another nail in the nutters’ coffin.
rave 3

28 July 2009 at 3:59 pm

Gosman sounds like you didnt learn anything at university. The break up of Yugoslavia followed the pattern of the break up of the Soviet Union to restore capitalism and privatise state resources. The war in Afghanistan has nothing to to with the Taliban or a terrorist threat to the West. The Taliban are Taliban tribes people defending their territory. They grow opium and deal with German imperialism. So NATO is there to protect its investment and to build a launch pad to Central Asian oil and gas. NZ is run by US cronies, so its likely that they will sell some Kiwi lives in exchange for a better credit rating or trade deal that ends up in their pockets.
http://redrave.blogspot.com/2009/05/no-new-viet-nam-war-in-afghanistan-and.html
Gosman 4

28 July 2009 at 4:10 pm

I love a good conspiracy theory and the left’s are just as good as the right’s.

Next you’ll be informing me that the Moon landing was faked and that Area 51 is full of Alien’s.

I can then go to a Right wing conspiracy website and learn that Obama is not actually a natural born US citizen and that the Jewish Holocaust never happened.
travellerev 5

29 July 2009 at 5:45 am

Ah, another idiot who thinks that three steel framed buildings can actually collapse into a pyroclastic flow into their own footprint in freefall speed when hit by two air planes with the kerosene burned up in the fist minutes outside the two towers.

Watch this woman (Edna Cintron) wave at you from the hole one of the planes made and watch this lecture from Richard Gage AIA representing over 700 architects and engineers who all want a new investigation into the events of 911 and then go donate some money to the 70.073 New Yorkers who want a new investigation into the events or to the 70.000 first responders dying and ill from the dust they inhaled while working on the pile.

And above all don’t even go near the Holocaust. 60 million people died in WWII making the 6 million Jews killed almost insignificant but 6 million Jews were killed solely because they were Jews and I grew up in a Europe with no trees left, with holes in every wall and with the Jews who survived the Holocaust. With the numbers tattooed on their arms from the system made possible by IBM.

You may love a “good” conspiracy, hahaha, but I can do without them.
Governments conspire against their people. That’s what they do. You dumbass.
- Gosman 5.1
  
  29 July 2009 at 6:34 am
  
  LOL
  
  I just love the way you justify your wacky conspiracy theory as if anyone who disagrees must be an imbecile while other people’s wacky conspiracy theories are wrong just because you say so.
  
  LOL
  
  BTW Do you think the US faked the Moon landing as well?
  - travellerev 5.1.1
    
    29 July 2009 at 8:46 am
    
    Gossman, you are cordially invited to attend Richard Gage’s Seminar at 2:00 pm 21 November at the Soundings Theatre, te Papa in Wellington.
    If that is not convenient we are in the process of organising a similar event in Auckland.
    You will be able to ask any question you like of Richard Gage and you will receive free of charge his seminar on high quality DVD and a selection of others will be available for your choice.
    
    RG represents over 700 high profile Architects and Engineers who want a new and independent investigation.
    
    I challenge you and others who have problems conceiving of the fact that the 911 events could have been staged by individuals within the power structure of the US. In fact we want as many suspicious and cynical believers in the official conspiracy theory (for which no proof was ever delivered) to come and challenge Richard Gage and the material he brings to the Seminar.
    
    As a result of the official conspiracy theory the world has been mired in two unwinnable wars against people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the events of 911 in order to establish US hegemony. The US population is exhausted both financially as well as economically and emotionally and now the powers that be want to suck the rest of us dry.
    
    Come on I dare all of you.
    
    And no I haven’t got a clue as to whether the space program really happened and neither do I have the time nor the inclination to go there.
travellerev 6

29 July 2009 at 5:52 am

Oh and Tim.
Don’t bother.

By the way for all of you interested to learn more about why we should not be in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq Richard Gage AIA will do a seminar in the Papa (Wellington) on the 21th of November.You can ask him all the questions you want and get some real in information. Or you can go there to Hackle him. Anyway I dare all of you morons who still think that the American are are natural allies and the good guys to go and really listen to this professional steel frame building designer about why buildings do not collapse into their own foor print in freefall speed. We have been had and we should get out of all those war torn countries straight away until a new and independent investigation has taken place.
Gosman 7

29 July 2009 at 10:18 am

Just a general question to people here.

Anybody think that September the 11th was not a giant conspiracy by the US Government to try and justify the invasion of Afghanistan and possibly Iraq?

The reason I am asking is I actually thought The standard was a serious political blog albeit with leftist views. I didn’t think it was a bastion for paranoia and dodgy theories.

Surely there must be someone from a leftist perspective who disagrees with the conspiracy theories around this subject?
Scott Yorke 8

29 July 2009 at 11:10 am

I agree with Gosman.

I can scarely believe what I am reading here.

People who believe 9/11 was a US government conspiracy have as much credibility as holocaust deniers.
- travellerev 8.1
  
  29 July 2009 at 11:26 am
  
  You too are cordially invited to attend the Seminar of Richard Gage AIA.
  
  Saturday November 21 2.00 pm
  Museum of New Zealand
  Te Papa Tongarewa
  Soundings Theatre
  
  How can that hurt? The worst you can get out of it is a good laugh at us “conspiracy” nuts.
  
  Captcha: fact. LOL
Scott Yorke 9

29 July 2009 at 11:37 am

“How can that hurt? The worst you can get out of it is a good laugh at us “conspiracy’ nuts.”

I can’t see myself attending such an event – I’d stick out. I’d be the only person not wearing a tinfoil hat.
Gosman 10

29 July 2009 at 11:44 am

What I would like to know is why Holocaust deniers are regarded as persona non grata by most rational people but September the 11th conspiracy theorists are acceptable to many in the mainstream.

The arguments used by both are equally irrational and paranoid.
Scott Yorke 11

29 July 2009 at 12:01 pm

Gosman, interestingly Holocaust deniers are very active in the 9/11 “truth” movement, according to Wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement
travellerev 12

29 July 2009 at 12:36 pm

Sad wankers
Scott Yorke 13

29 July 2009 at 12:43 pm

A cheap shot. Does that mean we won the debate?
- travellerev 13.1
  
  29 July 2009 at 1:12 pm
  
  The cheap shots were all yours and Gosmans. You don’t have the balls to engage in a real debate.
  - Gosman 13.1.1
    
    29 July 2009 at 1:20 pm
    
    You mean a real debate like some of the initial comments that you directed my way on this thread?
    
    Such as these gems:
    
    “Ah, another idiot who thinks that three steel framed buildings can actually collapse…”
    
    and
    
    “You may love a “good’ conspiracy, hahaha, but I can do without them.
    Governments conspire against their people. That’s what they do. You dumbass”
    
    If that is your definition of a “real” debate I would prefer just to stick to mocking you for being a wack job conspiracy nut along with Scott.
    
    LOL
BLiP 14

29 July 2009 at 12:47 pm

I haven’t made up my mind about 9/11 simply because of the Dubya Regime. Its lies and manipulation were so thorough as to leave room for doubt about anything it said and the more I learn the more I wonder. His and his family’s grubby fingerprints are all over some of the worst spectacles of the 20th Century and, to be honest, my position now is that I wouldn’t be surprised. That 9/11 was a conspiracy seems unlikely, at this stage, but I wonder what Dubya knew and when he knew it He certainly wasn’t shocked or even mildly surprised when he received the news – who can forget his dumb-ass smirking in the classroom when the news was first relayed? The timing was pretty cute too.

Thanks travellerev, please let me know if there’s anything on in Auckland. I’ll be there with my tin hat. Secret Agent Gosman may be too scared to open his mind to the possibility but I’m not. I’m impressed that the event is free – I had been reading about the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Business – do you know if the speakers have been paid over and above standard expenses?
- Gosman 14.1
  
  29 July 2009 at 1:07 pm
  
  Why do you presume I would be too scared to attend this event. I am in fact currently gathering information so I can ask Mr Gage about several of his dubious claims. The main question I am ghoing to ask is whether he actually understands the scientific method of investigation and if so why he decides to follow the opposite approach when it comes to his theories on September the 11th 2001.
- Gosman 14.2
  
  29 July 2009 at 2:10 pm
  
  I love the fact that BLiP claim not to have made up his/her mind about the September the 11th attacks yet he/she posted the following earlier on this very thread.
  
  “There has been wide and repeated coverage from any number of reputable US and international news agencies that the Osama-911 connection is bullshit. Even Osama’s FBI page makes no mention of 911. Perhaps you know something we don’t or maybe you are getting blogging instructions from HQ.”
  
  It seems pretty clear to me from that statement that his/her mind is pretty well made up and it isn’t on the side of rationality.
  
  LOL!
  - BLiP 14.2.1
    
    29 July 2009 at 2:52 pm
    
    You might have missed it but there’s a link above that is Cheney saying the administration has never made the case that Osama is responsible. I don’t know whether it was an independent group of terrorists or some off-shoot of el quada (sp) or whether or not it was Bush & Co. I haven’t made up my mind because Bush is such a liar. I note that you, again, rather than discuss the argument (which you brought to the table when your original position re Afrghanistan was refuted) and when confronted with evidence that proves you wrong, you make an attack on my rationality.
    
    Also, your attack The Standard as a whole is based on a couple of comments from a couple of commentators. Are you that threatened?
    
    I’m pleased to hear you’ll be in attendance at the meeting but I doubt you’ll learn anything. Your mind is closed on the subject and, before even attending, you are formulating arguments as to why what is going to be said is wrong. Have fun. I know the other attendees are going to be having a laugh if you ever actually do show up.
    - Gosman 14.2.1.1
      
      29 July 2009 at 3:43 pm
      
      You might have missed the link provided by Tim Ellis which shows how Osama was well aware of the events of September the 11th and has taken credit for them
      
      Just in case you have here it is again.
      
      “Speaking of nutters, you probably want to have a look at http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Bin_Laden's_FBI_Ten_Most_Wanted_poster which debunks the myth that there is no evidence linking Bin Laden with the 911 attacks.
      
      Some of the most compelling evidence, apart from the piles of intelligence data, is that Bin Laden himself has repeatedly claimed responsibility for the attacks.”
- travellerev 14.3
  
  29 July 2009 at 2:13 pm
  
  Why Gosman,
  
  I’m impressed. See you there then. If you really want to catch him out be sure to watch his presentation online.
  
  BLiP
  
  Thanks for you open mind. I really hope we can put a presentation together in Auckland. You can find announcements on my blog.
  
  With regards to the 911 “business”. Let’s take Richard Gage to name one high profile 911 truther:
  
  He is a highly regarded Architect. Specialised in steel framed buildings of the kind which imploded on 911. He is a member of AIA (the American Institute of Architects) a two time Bush voter and life long Republican who one day when listening to David Ray Griffin realised that not a single Architect or engineer had put any question marks behind the assertion that steel framed buildings could just implode into a pyroclastic flow into their own footprints in freefall speed. He also realised that if that was the case not one high rise in the US or the rest of the world could be trusted to not to collapse. Added to that when he found out that a third building collapsed that day in New York merely because of a few office fires he realised that something was not right and he started to do research. Just like many other scientists and professionals.
  
  He now travels the world to give his presentation (he will be in Japan after he visits New Zealand). He lost his marriage (not that she did not believe him but she just couldn’t live with the thought and wanted her life back.) he still works as an architect but spends most of his money trying to book stands on Engineering fairs and Architects conventions together with a loyal group of architects and engineers.
  
  He charges a flat fee of $ 500,- dollars and the cheapest airfare. He bunks on any bed he can find. The money goes towards paying for said fairs and conferences. No extra costs for expensive hotels or first class travel.
  That money has been put together by a group of 911 truthers in NZ who also share their spare bedrooms with him and provide him with simple meals etc and whose only goal is to give as many people as possible access to people such as RG.
  Nobody is in this to make a buck. It is an uphill struggle and we have other things that are more important than earning money. Such as stopping illegal wars of aggression and getting the 70.000 911 heroes and New Yorkers who are sick and dying because they had to breath in the toxins and the dust of those towers and getting answers for those who survived the attacks and their families.
  
  March last year I was in Sidney were I met the cream of the crop of 911 scientists and politicians all trying to spread their information. Other than their travelling costs they earned nothing. The guy who organised it (a Qantas airplane engineer) is still paying off the venue but nothing to these people.
  
  Le me make one thing clear other than that we state that the official “conspiracy theory is scientifically impossible we don’t know what really happened. All we want is a new and independent investigation such as the NYCCAN group in NY is trying to force into existence.
  
  Let me make one thing clear. I have yet to find a 911 truther who became rich over this. Even people like Alex Jones who are in this business partly commercial all give the lower quality copies of all their films free over the internet and invite everybody to copy and spread them at no cost and at no risk of court cases about copy right issues and if you buy the high quality films there is no protection and you are again invited to copy and spread without extra charge.
  
  If there is even a remote chance that we are fighting dirty wars of aggression based on lies we should retreat and allow such an investigation to take place.
  - Gosman 14.3.1
    
    29 July 2009 at 2:32 pm
    
    Mr Gage is not a structural engineer travellerev. He is also not an expert in controlled demolitions of any sort, let alone steel framed buildings. Something you would expect you would need to be if your main asertions is that controlled demolitions brought down both the Twin Towers and WTC 7 building.
    
    On top of this Mr Gage is very big on rehashing other people’s work on investigating the causes of the collapse of these two buildings but not on doing research, and publishing it in a peer reviewed journal, himself.
    
    I am going to make sure that these facts, as well as others, are presented at his talk. I can’t stand it when people get away with only presenting half truths like he does.
rave 15

29 July 2009 at 1:20 pm

Gosman was the first one to bring a conspiracy theory to this thread. The idea that there are some evil Islamic terrorists bent on destroying western civilisation is a conspiracy theory. What makes it OK for the likes of Gosman is that it is an official conspiracy theory promoted by the US ruling class to get the gullible masses to accept their justifications for war.

As to the alternative conspiracy theory, that US imperialism invades and occupies many countries in order to grab their resources, history provides much more evidence of the validity of this theory. A conspiracy theory is not necessarily untrue. Most large scale actions by states over time require a an organised conspiracy to pull them off.

The US official conspiracy to justify the “war on terror” was blown apart in Iraq. It turns out that the original conspirators were the US who bought Saddam as their man in Iraq and unleashed him on the Iranian Islamic state which has inconveniently overthrow their man the Shah, himself put in power by a US coup against Mossadegh in 1953. Problem was the Saddam didnt follow orders and went rogue, so the conspirators had to remove him, and find a pretxt to do it.

Same in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US has installed puppets in these states only to find they are regarded as stooges by the people. The Taliban are Pashtun people fighting for control of their country which straddles the colonial border between Pakistan and Afganisatn. They are not interested in bombing the US at home because they are not wanting to invade it to grab its resources.

I am open minded about 9/11. It’s one conspiracy against another. Do you take the official US conspiracy of al queda or the unofficial one of an inside job? To me it doesnt matter that much because if it was al queda its a relatively minor atrocity compared to the Nazi genocide, the H bombing of Japan, and the imperialist genocides in Rwanda and Congo to name a few. As a method of fighting imperialism it is counter-productive, like the Palestinian or Algerian FLN suicide bombers. But as one of the FLN leaders said to the French comandant who complained about their “terrorism”, we will exchange our suicide bombs for your aircraft.
Gosman 16

29 July 2009 at 1:27 pm

Isn’t there some rational left leaning posters who find all this talk about 911 conspiracies a little bit distastful?

You don’t even have to agree that George Bush was right to invade Afghanistan and Iraq as a result of the Terrorist attacks. Heck even i think the justification for the invasion of Iraq was flimsy at best and criminal at worst.

You do realise that to believe that something like this was an inside job would require the complicit and active involvement of thousands of individuals?

While possible I very much doubt it occured and it also raises some other questions such as if they could set this up then why couldn’t they plant some WMD in Iraq once they invaded?
- Draco T Bastard 16.1
  
  29 July 2009 at 3:41 pm
  
  You do realise that to believe that something like this was an inside job would require the complicit and active involvement of thousands of individuals?
  
  No, it wouldn’t. I don’t think the WTC were purposefully demolished but I do have questions about the actual attacks. They could certainly have been an “inside job” that was contracted out. And, no, I really don’t think it would take more than a few people to actually plan and orchestrate the hijackings and attacks. Throw in some incompetence in relating orders, a scheduled war game to confuse things as well as move most of the defenses to another part of the country and it being an inside job goes from the impossible thousands knowing about it to something easily coordinated and hidden.
  
  …if they could set this up then why couldn’t they plant some WMD in Iraq once they invaded?
  
  Batch numbers. They’d have to import the evidence from some unknown source and there just aren’t any.
  - Gosman 16.1.1
    
    29 July 2009 at 3:49 pm
    
    But why don’t you think that the WTC buildings were demolished in a controlled explosion Draco?
    
    Certainly Mr Gage, an eminent architect from the States, is convinced this is the case.
    
    Perhaps you just need a little convincing by visiting his conspiracy theorist website.
Scott Yorke 17

29 July 2009 at 1:43 pm

“You don’t have the balls to engage in a real debate.”

It’s more a matter of not wanting to waste my time. Which is also why I don’t debate with racists, anti-semites, climate-change deniers, flat-earthers and religious fundamentalists.

Gosman’s right: it is possible to think the US was wrong to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, without jumping to the absurd conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.
- BLiP 17.1
  
  29 July 2009 at 2:40 pm
  
  It was Gosman that brought in the 9/11 conspiracy. He was trying to paint those who disagree with his arguments as being “conspiracy theorists”, a perjorative term used by those who disagree – the Right’s classic “attack the messenger” strategy to hurt the person and not the argument. It is Gosman and yourself who are floundering here.
Gosman 18

29 July 2009 at 2:44 pm

Sorry BLiP but you have been caught out by your own words.

You are in fact a Conspiracy Theorist regarding September the 11th.

Embrace your wacky nut jobiness and start wearing that tin foil hat with pride.

(BTW I think you should blame the Jews. Everybody does in the end.)

LOL
- BLiP 18.1
  
  29 July 2009 at 2:59 pm
  
  You are still seeking to abuse and cast scorn up myself to avoid the argument. Thus, in this post the final score is:
  
  Seekers of Truth 1
  US Sychophants 0
  - Gosman 18.1.1
    
    29 July 2009 at 3:45 pm
    
    I don’t need to abuse or cast scorn upon yourself. I will just quote you back the stuff you have already stated about the issue and let people make up their own mind whether you are a conspiracy nut job.
    - travellerev 18.1.1.1
      
      30 July 2009 at 5:23 am
      
      I don’t know what your obsession is with Jews but for those of you who want to learn more, this is a website from an alliance of Jews, Muslims and Christians who want a new investigation into the events of 911.
      - Gosman 18.1.1.1.1
        
        30 July 2009 at 8:51 am
        
        Don’t you know that the Jews are behind EVERYTHING travellerev?
        
        LOL!
        
        BTW I note you didn’t respond to my critisism of Mr Gage.
        
        How come you place so much faith in someone who is neither a Structural engineer nor has expertise in controlled demollitions AND has not published any scientific investigation into the cause of the collapses of the buildings on September the 11th 2001?
travellerev 19

30 July 2009 at 9:39 am

You and everybody else is invited to hear Richard Gage AIA

Saturday November 21 2.00 pm
Museum of New Zealand
Te Papa Tongarewa
Soundings Theatre

or visit his site.
You might want to see the CV’s of the 731 Architects and Engineers who signed on to demand a new and independent investigation into the events of 911.

Also visit the site of the scientists for 911 truth or this peer reviewed article about Nanothermite particles found in the dust from the three buildings.

Keep it going Gosman, make my day. You’re good but not that good.

For those of you wondering what this is about; Three weeks after the events of 911 we the coalition of the killing invaded Afghanistan to capture the alleged mastermind behind the attacks of 911. That is almost 8 years ago.

Now once again we are asked to send in the SAS to help a “surge” to establish “succes” in the war against terrorism.

What are we fighting for is the title of this thread. I agree. What are we fighting for and why did we go in in the first place?

911 is the key.
- Gosman 19.1
  
  30 July 2009 at 10:51 am
  
  I love the fact that all your links basically reference each other in one giant conspiracy theory circle jerk.
  
  LOL
  
  You still haven’t answered the question about why Mr Gage is able to talk authoritatively on the theory that the collapse of the buildings on September 11th 2001 were by controlled demolitions when he is neither a Structural engineer or has any practical experience of Controlled demolitions.
  
  You also make out that he is doing all this out of the kindness of his heart and just wishes to cover his costs, however his own website has boundless amounts of fund raising initiatives such as DVD’s and audio recordings, not to mention actual membership which at the top end is more than 10,000 USD per year.
  
  I also think he has a hard time disputing the testimony of people like Danuel Nigro who was the Chief of Department of the FDNY on September 11th and ordered the evacuation of the WTC7 building fully 3 hous before it collapsed because he thought it was structually unsafe and the risk of collapse was to great to keep his men in there. This kind of blows Mr Gage’s view that the collapse of WTC7 is a smoking gun, unless you are saying Mr Nigro is complicit in this conspiracy that killed hundreds of his men?
  
  http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro
travellerev 20

30 July 2009 at 11:01 am

Wow, a professional debunker. How much do they pay you? I have never met a real pro. I feel honoured. Hope to meet you on 21th of November but I won’t hold my breath. Assholes like you don’t really have what it takes to come out into the light and face a real debate.

$10.000 no less for a membership to a site that can end you career. LOL.

The rest of you meet Richard and make up your own minds.

Have a nice day Gosman. Whmmm. Gosman isn’t that a Jewish name? Maybe that’s why you’re so hung up on the Jewish angle. LOL.

Captcha: understands. LOL
Macro 21

30 July 2009 at 11:32 am

“Don’t ask me I don’t give a Damn!
The next stops Afganistan!
And its 1,2,3,4….
etc etc “
- Gosman 21.1
  
  30 July 2009 at 3:58 pm
  
  So Macro, if you don’t care about the conflict in Afghanistan then what was the point of posting on this thread?
  - felix 21.1.1
    
    30 July 2009 at 4:14 pm
    
    whooosh.
    - Gosman 21.1.1.1
      
      30 July 2009 at 4:25 pm
      
      I know macro was posting an anti-war song Felix it is just not adding anything at all to the discussion.