Al Queada video threatens troops...or was it a Maggot Moore film?

[Drbio]

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) - A purported al-Qaida-made video shows militants in Afghanistan - including Europeans, Arabs and others - preparing to attack U.S. troops and showing off what they said was a U.S. military laptop.

The video, parts of which have been shown by Al-Arabiya television, including a segment aired Tuesday, features interviews with a masked man yelling "As you bomb us, you will be bombed!" and shows a group of men packing explosives into bombs.

The authenticity of the videotape could not be confirmed. Air Force Capt. Lennea Montandon, a spokeswoman for U.S. Central Command in Qatar, said the military would not comment because it had not seen the broadcast.

If authentic, the program would be the latest attempt by the al-Qaida network to use the broadcast media and Internet to promote its cause.

The three-part video, titled "The War of the Oppressed People," depicts what appears to be a few months in the lives of a group of fighters in wilderness camps in the Afghan mountains.

The men cook tea over campfires and kneel in prayer under the open skies, then duck into a makeshift classroom where an instructor outlines the coming "Operation to Defeat the Crucifix" against U.S. and allied forces.

In one scene, the tape claims al-Qaida was responsible for shooting down a U.S. Chinook helicopter, killing all 16 American troops on board.

The tape features an appearance by top-ranking al-Qaida member Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, as well as shots of a U.S. Air Force A-10 jet making bombing runs on a mountainside, and a close-up of a U.S. soldier quivering face down on the ground.

Al-Iraqi, speaking with a scarf hiding his face, says the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have created "two fronts" for recruiting terrorists to the cause of Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

"Now all the world is united behind Mullah Omar and Sheik Osama," he says.

The program includes interviews with bearded fighters claiming they are avenging the killing of Muslims by the U.S., Britain, Israel and India.

"If this is terrorism and fundamentalism, then OK, we are terrorists and fundamentalists," a Pakistani man who identifies himself as Bilal says in Urdu.

The tapes feature a diatribe by a British- or Australian-accented man wearing a black robe, AK-47 and military-style vest, who warns Westerners of "the lies of Blair and Bush."

"The Muslim world is not your backyard," he yells. "The honorable sons of Islam will not let you kill our sons. It is time for us to be equals. As you kill, you will be killed. As you bomb, you will be bombed."

One grisly segment shows a dead soldier lying face up, his bearded face caked in blood. The soldier, perhaps an Afghani, is dressed in green camouflage fatigues with a red shoulder patch. The insurgents display his rifle, an American M-16.

In another scene, a group of bombmakers slices white bricks of plastic explosive, packing them into cooking oil cans along with heavy steel bolts and gobs of glue.

Green-hued night footage shows the men digging holes at the roadside and planting the bombs.

Later, shaky footage follows a blue SUV as it travels along a remote dirt road. Text on the bottom of the screen says the car is carrying the head of security for Afghanistan's Kunar province.

Without warning the vehicle is ripped apart in a giant fireball. The attack appears to depict the June 28 roadside bombing that killed a district police chief and two other officers.

Yet another scene pans across a cache of captured U.S. gear, including a laptop, an M-16, military radios, a global positioning satellite display and the Department of Defense ID card of slain Navy SEAL Danny Phillip Dietz Jr.

Dietz, 25, of Littleton, Colo., was killed June 28 after his four-man reconnaissance team came under attack in Kunar province. The Chinook helicopter was downed and the 16 troops killed as the craft was on its way to aid Dietz, killing all aboard.

An insurgent is shown going through the laptop's hard drive, zooming in on a U.S. military document marked "For Official Use Only" and a map of Kabul marked with the locations of the U.S. and British embassies.

The film is subtitled in Arabic, but carries interviews in English, French, Pashto and Urdu, as well as Arabic spoken with Yemeni, Saudi and Iraqi accents.

Baker Atyani, Al-Arabiya's Asia bureau chief, said the network received the tape last week, but would not say how or where it was delivered.

[Mavdog]

Good thing we finished the job in Afganistan!

wait, we didn't finish the job. we went and opened another theater of war....

I wonder who made that decision? [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

[dude1394]

Who says we didn't "finish" the job in afghanistan? Is your definition of "finished" when a country like afghanistan completly stands on their own? You mean sort of like europe did for the last 50 years. Or sort of like S. Korea has done now?

Maybe the job isn't "finished" yet in Britain since they just had bombings.

At least get serious.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Who says we didn't "finish" the job in afghanistan? Is your definition of "finished" when a country like afghanistan completly stands on their own? You mean sort of like europe did for the last 50 years. Or sort of like S. Korea has done now?

Maybe the job isn't "finished" yet in Britain since they just had bombings.

At least get serious.

can you actually, with a straight face, say that the Afganistan situation is a) stable, b) with the Taliban not a force, and c) the al Queda organization removed?

Tha answer to all the above is a loud resounding NO.

The government we installed in Afganistan does not control its own territory, the Taliban operate fairly easily, and al Queda continues to send out messages/videos.

I'd say it wasn't "Mission Accomplished" in Afganistan either. seriously.

[dude1394]

You have a strange sense of stability? Saudia Arabia, Nigeria, China, Pakistan, Bosnia, Lebanon, Syria are "stable". What do you want here anyway? No one has ever "controlled" afghanistan except for the taliban? Is that the type of control you are talking about.

Here is the link for the Nato force in afghanistan nato.

Here is a new brief about Nato's plans to expand there. <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http:// Statement by the NATO Spokesman on ISAF’s expansion to the West of Afghanistan
31 May 2005">nato</a>

Your quickness to bash america and belittle the great gift the afghani's have been given is really quite pathetic.

Here is another link talking about the good news from afghanistan. I'm sure your "paper of record" isn't interested, nor you it seems.

good news from afghanistan



Here is a link to the latest good news from afghanistan. Do we not still have peacekeepers in bosnia? If I understand correctly NATO is planning on taking complete control of afghanistan in the near future.

[dude1394]

You have a strange sense of stability? Saudia Arabia, Nigeria, China, Pakistan, Bosnia, Lebanon, Syria are "stable". What do you want here anyway? No one has ever "controlled" afghanistan except for the taliban? Is that the type of control you are talking about.

Here is the link for the Nato force in afghanistan nato.

Here is a new brief about Nato's plans to expand there. <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http:// Statement by the NATO Spokesman on ISAF’s expansion to the West of Afghanistan
31 May 2005">nato</a>

Your quickness to bash america and belittle the great gift the afghani's have been given is really quite pathetic.

Here is another link talking about the good news from afghanistan. I'm sure your "paper of record" isn't interested, nor you it seems.

good news from afghanistan



Here is a link to the latest good news from afghanistan. Do we not still have peacekeepers in bosnia? If I understand correctly NATO is planning on taking complete control of afghanistan in the near future.

[dude1394]

You have a strange sense of stability? Saudia Arabia, Nigeria, China, Pakistan, Bosnia, Lebanon, Syria are "stable". What do you want here anyway? No one has ever "controlled" afghanistan except for the taliban? Is that the type of control you are talking about.

Here is the link for the Nato force in afghanistan nato.

Here is a new brief about Nato's plans to expand there. <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http:// Statement by the NATO Spokesman on ISAF’s expansion to the West of Afghanistan
31 May 2005">nato</a>

Your quickness to bash america and belittle the great gift the afghani's have been given is really quite pathetic.

Here is another link talking about the good news from afghanistan. I'm sure your "paper of record" isn't interested, nor you it seems.

good news from afghanistan



Here is a link to the latest good news from afghanistan. Do we not still have peacekeepers in bosnia? If I understand correctly NATO is planning on taking complete control of afghanistan in the near future.

[Mavdog]

First, how you construe my point that Afganistan remains unstable as a "bash America" statement is ridiculous. absurd.

second, to "belittle the great gift the afgani's have been given" is a stretch for even you.

Apparently you haven't read about the loss of American servicemen in Afganistan, which of course of not the case in bosnia, or any of the other countries you have mentioned having US troops. Perhaps you have also missed the killing of Afgani government troops and officials by Taliban.

The facts are Afganistan is not today stable, the government still does not control the entire country. the taliban, those people who aided the 9/11 al queda attack, remain active and a force.

[Mavdog]

First, how you construe my point that Afganistan remains unstable as a "bash America" statement is ridiculous. absurd.

second, to "belittle the great gift the afgani's have been given" is a stretch for even you.

Apparently you haven't read about the loss of American servicemen in Afganistan, which of course of not the case in bosnia, or any of the other countries you have mentioned having US troops. Perhaps you have also missed the killing of Afgani government troops and officials by Taliban.

The facts are Afganistan is not today stable, the government still does not control the entire country. the taliban, those people who aided the 9/11 al queda attack, remain active and a force.

[Mavdog]

First, how you construe my point that Afganistan remains unstable as a "bash America" statement is ridiculous. absurd.

second, to "belittle the great gift the afgani's have been given" is a stretch for even you.

Apparently you haven't read about the loss of American servicemen in Afganistan, which of course of not the case in bosnia, or any of the other countries you have mentioned having US troops. Perhaps you have also missed the killing of Afgani government troops and officials by Taliban.

The facts are Afganistan is not today stable, the government still does not control the entire country. the taliban, those people who aided the 9/11 al queda attack, remain active and a force.

[Drbio]

Anything the forum dolt mavdookie posts is ridiculous and absurd. Period.

What a tool.

[Drbio]

Anything the forum dolt mavdookie posts is ridiculous and absurd. Period.

What a tool.

[Drbio]

Anything the forum dolt mavdookie posts is ridiculous and absurd. Period.

What a tool.

[FishForLunch]

I guess a dumbass like Mavdog does not understand what a Gurellia war means. It takes years for the a country that has been in a war to settle down and get back to normal.

[FishForLunch]

I guess a dumbass like Mavdog does not understand what a Gurellia war means. It takes years for the a country that has been in a war to settle down and get back to normal.

[FishForLunch]

I guess a dumbass like Mavdog does not understand what a Gurellia war means. It takes years for the a country that has been in a war to settle down and get back to normal.

[dude1394]

I've also read about the loss of Israeli civilians in israel, the massacre in breslan, the bombs in london, the bombing in bali, the bombing in spain all of the other acts or terrorism, I guess those countries are not secure as they still have al queda operating there.

You ARE bashing america again as if they have done some sort of crappy job in afghanistan. They've liberated those people from an oppressive regime, done it with less than geez, I don't know how many troops 1,000?? and now you whine ( I guess ) that we should put in 200,000 troops to secure the place. Man wake up... Sure there is still work to be done there and in many other places (that I've mentioned) but your snarky comments about how..

Good thing we finished the job in Afganistan!

wait, we didn't finish the job. we went and opened another theater of war....

I wonder who made that decision?

just belies your agenda here and it's just flat out stupid. That agenda is to bash america again (or is it just bush). If you don't understand that the gift that the afghanis have been given is a great one just go ask frickin tibet or the chinese or cubans or vietnamese what the hell they think about it.

[dude1394]

I've also read about the loss of Israeli civilians in israel, the massacre in breslan, the bombs in london, the bombing in bali, the bombing in spain all of the other acts or terrorism, I guess those countries are not secure as they still have al queda operating there.

You ARE bashing america again as if they have done some sort of crappy job in afghanistan. They've liberated those people from an oppressive regime, done it with less than geez, I don't know how many troops 1,000?? and now you whine ( I guess ) that we should put in 200,000 troops to secure the place. Man wake up... Sure there is still work to be done there and in many other places (that I've mentioned) but your snarky comments about how..

Good thing we finished the job in Afganistan!

wait, we didn't finish the job. we went and opened another theater of war....

I wonder who made that decision?

just belies your agenda here and it's just flat out stupid. That agenda is to bash america again (or is it just bush). If you don't understand that the gift that the afghanis have been given is a great one just go ask frickin tibet or the chinese or cubans or vietnamese what the hell they think about it.

[dude1394]

I've also read about the loss of Israeli civilians in israel, the massacre in breslan, the bombs in london, the bombing in bali, the bombing in spain all of the other acts or terrorism, I guess those countries are not secure as they still have al queda operating there.

You ARE bashing america again as if they have done some sort of crappy job in afghanistan. They've liberated those people from an oppressive regime, done it with less than geez, I don't know how many troops 1,000?? and now you whine ( I guess ) that we should put in 200,000 troops to secure the place. Man wake up... Sure there is still work to be done there and in many other places (that I've mentioned) but your snarky comments about how..

Good thing we finished the job in Afganistan!

wait, we didn't finish the job. we went and opened another theater of war....

I wonder who made that decision?

just belies your agenda here and it's just flat out stupid. That agenda is to bash america again (or is it just bush). If you don't understand that the gift that the afghanis have been given is a great one just go ask frickin tibet or the chinese or cubans or vietnamese what the hell they think about it.

[Mavdog]

how classsic. criticism of the bush administration equals a "bash America" statement. nothing could be further from the truth.

it's interesting that you cannot dispute the fact that Afghanistan is not stable, that the taliban continue to not only kill Americans but also Afgani troops and government officials. that is not the case in any of the countries you mention. those governments don't have their officials murdered. those countries (excpet Israel) don't have parts of their territory in a lawless state. those countries don't have safe areas for terrorists such as the taliban and al queda to operate.

IMO the US did not finish the job in Afghanistan, and we should commit the resouces to stabilize the Karsai government so they control all of their territory, and so the taliban are unable to field soldiers.

but we can't.

and we all know why.

it may be tough to remember wiith all the white house spin on iraq being part of the war on terror, but it was the taliban who aided the terrorist who attacked america, it was not the iraqis.

[Mavdog]

how classsic. criticism of the bush administration equals a "bash America" statement. nothing could be further from the truth.

it's interesting that you cannot dispute the fact that Afghanistan is not stable, that the taliban continue to not only kill Americans but also Afgani troops and government officials. that is not the case in any of the countries you mention. those governments don't have their officials murdered. those countries (excpet Israel) don't have parts of their territory in a lawless state. those countries don't have safe areas for terrorists such as the taliban and al queda to operate.

IMO the US did not finish the job in Afghanistan, and we should commit the resouces to stabilize the Karsai government so they control all of their territory, and so the taliban are unable to field soldiers.

but we can't.

and we all know why.

it may be tough to remember wiith all the white house spin on iraq being part of the war on terror, but it was the taliban who aided the terrorist who attacked america, it was not the iraqis.

[Mavdog]

how classsic. criticism of the bush administration equals a "bash America" statement. nothing could be further from the truth.

it's interesting that you cannot dispute the fact that Afghanistan is not stable, that the taliban continue to not only kill Americans but also Afgani troops and government officials. that is not the case in any of the countries you mention. those governments don't have their officials murdered. those countries (excpet Israel) don't have parts of their territory in a lawless state. those countries don't have safe areas for terrorists such as the taliban and al queda to operate.

IMO the US did not finish the job in Afghanistan, and we should commit the resouces to stabilize the Karsai government so they control all of their territory, and so the taliban are unable to field soldiers.

but we can't.

and we all know why.

it may be tough to remember wiith all the white house spin on iraq being part of the war on terror, but it was the taliban who aided the terrorist who attacked america, it was not the iraqis.

[FishForLunch]

Can you give me an example where a country that just at war was stable and a liberal democracy in 3 years? You cant just whining.

[FishForLunch]

Can you give me an example where a country that just at war was stable and a liberal democracy in 3 years? You cant just whining.

[FishForLunch]

Can you give me an example where a country that just at war was stable and a liberal democracy in 3 years? You cant just whining.

[dude1394]

How sad... Obviously your idea and my idea of stable with respect to afghanistan is light-years apart. However I don't think you would support 200,000 troops in afghanistan any more than I would. Nor is there a need to.

The only thing I can think that you are trying to do is make a point about iraq. And to do that you are willing to belittle what we have done in afghanistan.

[dude1394]

How sad... Obviously your idea and my idea of stable with respect to afghanistan is light-years apart. However I don't think you would support 200,000 troops in afghanistan any more than I would. Nor is there a need to.

The only thing I can think that you are trying to do is make a point about iraq. And to do that you are willing to belittle what we have done in afghanistan.

[dude1394]

How sad... Obviously your idea and my idea of stable with respect to afghanistan is light-years apart. However I don't think you would support 200,000 troops in afghanistan any more than I would. Nor is there a need to.

The only thing I can think that you are trying to do is make a point about iraq. And to do that you are willing to belittle what we have done in afghanistan.

[kg_veteran]

it's interesting that you cannot dispute the fact that Afghanistan is not stable

It's interesting that you can't read. dude1394 completely dismantled your sad argument, and apparently you don't even realize it.

[kg_veteran]

it's interesting that you cannot dispute the fact that Afghanistan is not stable

It's interesting that you can't read. dude1394 completely dismantled your sad argument, and apparently you don't even realize it.

[kg_veteran]

it's interesting that you cannot dispute the fact that Afghanistan is not stable

It's interesting that you can't read. dude1394 completely dismantled your sad argument, and apparently you don't even realize it.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Mavdog, it's obvious that things are not Hunkey Dorey in Afghanistan... they never have been... EVER The Taliban and Al Qaeda are still a force, particularly along the border with Pakistan, where Bin Laden is believed by many to be hiding. We haven't left Afghanistan yet! We haven't cut and run, and nobody is pretending that everything is peachy. However, when you say "Good thing we finished the job in Afganistan! wait, we didn't finish the job. we went and opened another theater of war...." You make it sound like we just left Afghanistan to the wolves, like we've done in the past; we haven't. You speak of soldiers dying and leaders being killed as if they are signs that this campaign is a disaster, but that's the nature of such a war. That's what always happens when you pacify a country, especially one that has been unstable throughout its entire history, like Afghanistan. The truth is, the U.S. SERIOUSLY f*cked up by not helping stabilize Afghanistan after we helped the Mudjahadeen defeat the Soviets. When the Soviets withdrew, we should have aided the forces led by Ahmad Shah Massoud, the man who repeatedly defeated the Red Army in the Panjshir Valley. To the Afghan people he was affectionately known as the Lion on Panjshir. Massoud was a good man; a man who preached a more moderate, tolerant Islam. But instead of aiding Massoud's forces, we abandoned him, and the Taliban and Al Qaeda, backed by Pakistan, took control of most of the country. Massoud, forced to withdraw back to the Panjshir Valley, was assassinated by Al Qaeda agents on September 9, 2001. You get that? Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated TWO DAYS before the 9/11 attacks. That ain't no coincedence. Bin Laden himself was even quoted as saying "There is no victory as long as this man is alive." The fact is, our government dropped the ball in Afghanistan in the 80's-90's. Now Massoud, many Afghan patriots, and our brave soldiers have given their lives for it. Massoud and the Afghan people deserve justice. No, things aren't peachy in Afghanistan, but we're still there. We haven't cut and run, not yet anyway.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Mavdog, it's obvious that things are not Hunkey Dorey in Afghanistan... they never have been... EVER The Taliban and Al Qaeda are still a force, particularly along the border with Pakistan, where Bin Laden is believed by many to be hiding. We haven't left Afghanistan yet! We haven't cut and run, and nobody is pretending that everything is peachy. However, when you say "Good thing we finished the job in Afganistan! wait, we didn't finish the job. we went and opened another theater of war...." You make it sound like we just left Afghanistan to the wolves, like we've done in the past; we haven't. You speak of soldiers dying and leaders being killed as if they are signs that this campaign is a disaster, but that's the nature of such a war. That's what always happens when you pacify a country, especially one that has been unstable throughout its entire history, like Afghanistan. The truth is, the U.S. SERIOUSLY f*cked up by not helping stabilize Afghanistan after we helped the Mudjahadeen defeat the Soviets. When the Soviets withdrew, we should have aided the forces led by Ahmad Shah Massoud, the man who repeatedly defeated the Red Army in the Panjshir Valley. To the Afghan people he was affectionately known as the Lion on Panjshir. Massoud was a good man; a man who preached a more moderate, tolerant Islam. But instead of aiding Massoud's forces, we abandoned him, and the Taliban and Al Qaeda, backed by Pakistan, took control of most of the country. Massoud, forced to withdraw back to the Panjshir Valley, was assassinated by Al Qaeda agents on September 9, 2001. You get that? Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated TWO DAYS before the 9/11 attacks. That ain't no coincedence. Bin Laden himself was even quoted as saying "There is no victory as long as this man is alive." The fact is, our government dropped the ball in Afghanistan in the 80's-90's. Now Massoud, many Afghan patriots, and our brave soldiers have given their lives for it. Massoud and the Afghan people deserve justice. No, things aren't peachy in Afghanistan, but we're still there. We haven't cut and run, not yet anyway.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Mavdog, it's obvious that things are not Hunkey Dorey in Afghanistan... they never have been... EVER The Taliban and Al Qaeda are still a force, particularly along the border with Pakistan, where Bin Laden is believed by many to be hiding. We haven't left Afghanistan yet! We haven't cut and run, and nobody is pretending that everything is peachy. However, when you say "Good thing we finished the job in Afganistan! wait, we didn't finish the job. we went and opened another theater of war...." You make it sound like we just left Afghanistan to the wolves, like we've done in the past; we haven't. You speak of soldiers dying and leaders being killed as if they are signs that this campaign is a disaster, but that's the nature of such a war. That's what always happens when you pacify a country, especially one that has been unstable throughout its entire history, like Afghanistan. The truth is, the U.S. SERIOUSLY f*cked up by not helping stabilize Afghanistan after we helped the Mudjahadeen defeat the Soviets. When the Soviets withdrew, we should have aided the forces led by Ahmad Shah Massoud, the man who repeatedly defeated the Red Army in the Panjshir Valley. To the Afghan people he was affectionately known as the Lion on Panjshir. Massoud was a good man; a man who preached a more moderate, tolerant Islam. But instead of aiding Massoud's forces, we abandoned him, and the Taliban and Al Qaeda, backed by Pakistan, took control of most of the country. Massoud, forced to withdraw back to the Panjshir Valley, was assassinated by Al Qaeda agents on September 9, 2001. You get that? Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated TWO DAYS before the 9/11 attacks. That ain't no coincedence. Bin Laden himself was even quoted as saying "There is no victory as long as this man is alive." The fact is, our government dropped the ball in Afghanistan in the 80's-90's. Now Massoud, many Afghan patriots, and our brave soldiers have given their lives for it. Massoud and the Afghan people deserve justice. No, things aren't peachy in Afghanistan, but we're still there. We haven't cut and run, not yet anyway.

[capitalcity]

We're not leaving Afghanistan until we're done using their mountains as a proving ground for the V-22.

2010

[capitalcity]

We're not leaving Afghanistan until we're done using their mountains as a proving ground for the V-22.

2010

[capitalcity]

We're not leaving Afghanistan until we're done using their mountains as a proving ground for the V-22.

2010

[Mavdog]

U.S. Held Meetings With Taliban in 2000 By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer
Fri Aug 19, 2:25 AM ET

The United States was "not out to destroy the Taliban," a U.S. diplomat told the regime just a year before a U.S.-led invasion toppled Afghanistan's Taliban government that had harbored al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden.

U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan William B. Milam held a secret meeting with an unidentified senior Taliban official in September 2000 and assured him that international sanctions on the Taliban would end if bin Laden were expelled from Afghanistan, newly declassified documents show.

"The ambassador added that the U.S. was not against the Taliban, per se," and "was not out to destroy the Taliban," Milam wrote in a secret cable to Washington, recounting his meeting.

A declassified version of the cable was released Thursday, obtained by George Washington University's National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act.

Milam told the Taliban official — whose name is excised from the declassified document — that bin Laden was the main impediment to better relations between the Taliban and the United States.

"If the U.S. and the Taliban could get past bin Laden, we would have a different kind of relationship," Milam said he told the official.

At the time, a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, Washington had no formal diplomatic relations with Afghanistan because of human rights and other abuses by the militant Islamic Taliban regime.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the Bush administration had no comment on the meeting, which occurred before President Bush took office.

In his 2000 diplomatic cable, Milam told his bosses the Taliban official had adopted a "far less obstreperous" tone than usually heard from the Taliban, and suggested the United States do some small favor for Afghanistan to show good will.

The meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan, produced no promise from the Taliban to turn over bin Laden, and it is not clear from the material released Thursday what the Clinton administration did next.

By June 2001 under the Bush administration, Milam was warning Afghanistan that the Taliban leadership would bear responsibility for any attack on American targets by bin Laden, the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan reported at the time.

Milam's cable was among Afghanistan-related documents acquired by the National Security Archive, which posted them on its Web site.

Other documents released Thursday chart several years of unsuccessful U.S. attempts to drive bin Laden out of Afghanistan.

At the time of Milam's cable, the United States knew bin Laden was living under Taliban protection along the Afghan-Pakistani border and running his al-Qaida terror network from Afghanistan. U.S. diplomats had periodic contact with the Taliban to urge his ouster.

The United States had accused bin Laden of orchestrating two 1998 U.S. embassy bombings that killed Americans in East Africa, but neither he nor his terror network were the household names they became after the jetliner attacks on New York City and Washington in September 2001.

Shortly after the attacks, U.S. forces helped the Afghan opposition Northern Alliance overthrow the Taliban government and hunt down its leaders. The Bush administration's goal was twofold: rout bin Laden's protectors and capture bin Laden himself.

Nearly four years after the invasion, a 21,000-member U.S.-led coalition force remains to fight Taliban remnants and keep order despite the emergence of a new U.S.-allied government. Neither bin Laden nor Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar have been captured.

A reinvigorated insurgency killed two U.S. soldiers Thursday when a roadside bomb hit a military convoy protecting road workers, and the new American ambassador warned that violence by Afghan rebels would not end soon.

A surge of violence since winter has killed about 1,000 people — including 59 American soldiers. Militants have stepped up assaults in the south and east trying to sabotage the country's U.S.-backed recovery.

[Drbio]

*yawn*

It's amazing how bad the bitchslap in this thread was and the sad lack of comprehension of same.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
*yawn*

It's amazing how bad the bitchslap in this thread was and the sad lack of comprehension of same.

I know, you are embarrassing yourself again and again.