CIA Agents Reveal How Bill Clinton Stopped Them From Killing Osama bin Laden and Preventing 9/11

[Sirris]

In an exclusive clip from the Showtime documentary “The Longest War,” premiering April 19, CIA agents explain how Bill Clinton blocked the U.S. from killing Osama bin Laden.

Former President Bill Clinton has talked openly about how he could have killed Osama bin Laden—but passed.

“I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I just didn't do it,” Clinton confessed to an Australian audience just 10 hours before two planes struck the World Trade Center.

But in The Longest War, a new documentary from director Greg Barker (Manhunt) and executive producer Alex Gansa (Homeland), former CIA agents reveal that they had another opportunity to take out Osama bin Laden with little collateral damage.

“Bin Laden was constantly moving, and we were using Afghan tribal networks to report on his travels and his whereabouts,” Bob Grenier, then-CIA station chief in Islamabad, Pakistan, says in the film.

WATCH THE EXCLUSIVE CLIP HERE:

When the Afghan tribal networks uncovered that a caravan carrying bin Laden would be traveling along a certain route, they suggested U.S. forces bury a cache of explosives along it to eliminate the infamous terrorist. But Grenier told them they’d be “risking jail” if they did, and that was all thanks to President Clinton.

“The CIA had a so-called ‘lethal finding’ [bill] that had been signed by President Clinton that said that we could engage in ‘lethal activity’ against bin Laden, but the purpose of our attack against bin Laden couldn’t be to kill him,” Grenier explains in the film. “We were being asked to remove this threat to the United States essentially with one hand tied behind our backs.”

According to director Greg Barker, “It’s hard to believe now, but back in the late ‘90s, most of the Washington national security establishment—including President Clinton, the State Department, the Department of Defense—simply did not view Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda as a serious threat. The handful of U.S. officials who saw the looming threat clearly—and there were some, mostly mid-level officers at the CIA’s bin Laden unit and the counter-terrorism branch at the FBI—tried in vain to raise alarm bells at the highest levels, but were often ignored and even ridiculed.”

“As a result,” he continues, “policy decisions were made that seem unfathomable today, like a Justice Department ruling that it would be illegal for the United States to intentionally kill bin Laden, which left CIA officers in the field feeling frustrated and angry, as if they were unable to prevent a train crash happening in slow motion right before their eyes. The irony is that many of these same mid-level officers were later blamed for not doing enough to prevent the 9/11 attacks, when in fact the blame rests with the senior decision-makers who ignored direct warnings for far too long.”

Barker is also the man behind Manhunt, a documentary detailing the (mainly female) CIA agents who spent years hunting down Osama bin Laden. Like that exceptional film, The Longest War is a thorough examination of the catastrophe that is the Afghanistan war, which officially began on October 7, 2001, and continues to this day, making it the longest war in U.S. history.

“There’s enough blame to go around, and I think the film hands it out evenly,” EP Alex Gansa tells The Daily Beast. “Bill Clinton didn’t have the balls to do what was necessary before 9/11, George Bush didn’t take the threat seriously enough when he came into office and then grievously overreacted when that threat was realized, and Obama didn’t do what he promised during his campaign—namely, end the wars.”

The exclusive clip above ends on a haunting coda, courtesy of Marty Martin, a CIA counterterrorism officer at the time.

“The threat was real,” he says. “And if President Clinton had taken action and killed Osama bin Laden, there wouldn’t have been a 9/11, and if there wouldn’t have been a 9/11 there wouldn’t have been an Afghanistan, and if there wouldn’t have been an Afghanistan there wouldn’t have been an Iraq. What would the world be like?”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cia-a...om-killing-osama-bin-laden-and-preventing-911

 

[Sirris]

Bill Clinton lied about how Bin Laden escaped during his era. He intentionally let the guy live! US were conducting airstrikes in Afghanistan throughout the late 90s, hence it wasn't as if they weren't killing anyone and their hands were tied due to legal reasons. It was an oder from Clinton not to kill him!

He wasted American resources and risked the lives of tribal Afghans working as CIA informants to track down Bin Laden. What was it all for, if not to kill him? It's as if tracking him down was just to cover him and give him protection. If US military and their Afghan allies on the ground weren't supposed to kill him, who was? American establishment intentionally let the guy live until he did his crime and gave Americans the justification to "fight evil" and appear good in front of the whole world.

Bin Laden isn't guilty of killing Americans personally. He is guilty for spreading the ideology which led to 9/11 and killing of people. His decision and words led to death and destruction. What about Bill Clinton?

Will we ever see a day when established liars like Bill Clinton and George Bush have to stand in front of an independent court and give account for their decisions, which led to deaths of millions and destruction of at least two countries? Until this happens can we sincerely say that we live in a world where nobody is above the law?

 

[chacha kashmiri]

If it wasn't for afridi bin laden would still be in abbotabad

The likes of Osama were scaredy cats who ran away and put the rest of the world in danger through their actions and the repercussions which followed

The seal team which went to his compound where he was with Amal have also been shrouded with doubt as apparently none of them are still around to tell the tale

The US establishment has a long history both with Libya and also Turkish pirates and they have always had the same heavy handed approach to deal with international terrorism although their foreign policy which often involves proxy terrorism bring in down foreign regimes such as the iranian shah's and saddams Iraq is the cause for most global terrorists

 

[sweep_shot]

I personally believe 9/11 was an inside job and I also believe that CIA purposefully allowed the terrorists to do their acts.

There were other agendas.

 

[MRSN]

I personally believe 9/11 was an inside job and I also believe that CIA purposefully allowed the terrorists to do their acts.

There were other agendas.

It's amazing how naive some Muslims were who followed these terrorists blindly. Terrorism was obviously against the teaching of Islam.

 

[sweep_shot]

It's amazing how naive some Muslims were who followed these terrorists blindly. Terrorism was obviously against the teaching of Islam.

There were no ISIS/AQ 100 years ago. It is possible these groups were planted on purpose.

Groups like ISIS and AQ are useful idiots for some entities. There is always a need for a boogeyman for these entities.

 

[Sirris]

I personally believe 9/11 was an inside job and I also believe that CIA purposefully allowed the terrorists to do their acts.

There were other agendas.

How can it be an inside job, while at the same time allowed the terrorists to do their acts?

It wasn't an inside job!

Americans showed too much neglect that's for sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_intelligence_before_the_attacks

Though at that time no one could've imagined that the plan would be hijacking the planes and crashing them into buildings.

 

[Sirris]

There were no ISIS/AQ 100 years ago. It is possible these groups were planted on purpose.

Groups like ISIS and AQ are useful idiots for some entities. There is always a need for a boogeyman for these entities.

This is not 2005 where one could deny the existence of groups like AQ or chop it off as a CIA franchise. There is now more than enough evidence. Denying the existence of such groups and their motivation from Islamic literature, is like denying that the sky is blue. All you have to do is look outside the window and realize the sky is blue.

The argument of a boogeyman may make sense logically but in light of evidence they are just an attempt to deny reality.

If they are such useful idiots how come the USA is having a hard time leaving Afghanistan even though Trump wants to do it so desperately, since it has become nothing but a huge burden on US economy?

AQ and IS(yes IS as in Islamic State and not ISIS which was their old name) are groups which originated on their own and aren't planted. You should bring proof for your claim that they were intentionally planted, besides wishful thinking and make believe.

 

[Robert]

I personally believe 9/11 was an inside job and I also believe that CIA purposefully allowed the terrorists to do their acts.

There were other agendas.

You believe that American intelligence murdered thousands of their own civilians and those of their allies.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You believe that American intelligence murdered thousands of their own civilians and those of their allies.

lol, CIA are evil. Have you studied their history of destorying nations?

Yes lets believe Good ol bill who came on TV and openly lied he had no intimate relations with the Monica lady.

911 will always be bought up but never how they did 1000X worse in response, even if you believe the official story.

 

[KingKhanWC]

How can it be an inside job, while at the same time allowed the terrorists to do their acts?

It wasn't an inside job!

Americans showed too much neglect that's for sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_intelligence_before_the_attacks

Though at that time no one could've imagined that the plan would be hijacking the planes and crashing them into buildings.

WT7 is your proof. You dont even have to look into the dozens of other holes in the official story.

 

[sweep_shot]

How can it be an inside job, while at the same time allowed the terrorists to do their acts?

It wasn't an inside job!

Americans showed too much neglect that's for sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_intelligence_before_the_attacks

Though at that time no one could've imagined that the plan would be hijacking the planes and crashing them into buildings.

There are so many questions.

Why did Building 7 go down in a free fall?

BTW, there are many Americans who believe 9/11 was an inside job. Here's one such group: https://www.ae911truth.org/.

 

[sweep_shot]

You believe that American intelligence murdered thousands of their own civilians and those of their allies.

100%.

It was not American government but deep state. American government is a puppet of the deep state.

Do you think there is no deep state?

 

[KingKhanWC]

100%.

It was not American government but deep state. American government is a puppet of the deep state.

Do you think there is no deep state?

Robert was giving us reasons why the UK is still a powerful nation, trident etc but we have Turkey giving us aid now.

No matter what the evidence some cannot accept their own government or the great western liberal democratic governments (or their agencies) will kill their own people. Heck they dont even believe Iraq was state terrorism on a huge scale.

 

[sweep_shot]

World Trade Center
Main article: World Trade Center (1973–2001)
During the 1990s, New York was suffering from the effects of the 1987 stock market crash, which led to high vacancy rates at the World Trade Center. George Pataki became Governor of New York in 1995 on a campaign of cutting costs, including privatizing the World Trade Center. A sale of the property was considered too complex, so it was decided by the Port Authority to open a 99-year lease to competitive bidding.[17]

In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties, made a $3.2 billion bid to lease-purchase the World Trade Center.[18] Silverstein was outbid by $30 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew in March, giving Silverstein 14 days to negotiate a new bid. Silverstein's negotiated bid was finalized on April 26, 2001, in partnership with Westfield America, Inc.[19][20] and accepted on July 24, 2001.[21] This was the first time in the complex's 31-year history that it had changed management. After it withdrew, Vornado announced a deal with Bloomberg LP to finance Bloomberg's new headquarters at 731 Lexington Avenue.[22]

The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m2) of retail space. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal.[23] The agreement gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed.[24]

September 11 attacks
Main article: September 11 attacks
Silverstein has said in interviews that he usually spent his mornings in breakfast meetings at Windows on the World on top of the World Trade Center North Tower, and with new tenants in the building. However, the morning of September 11, 2001, his wife insisted that he attend a medical appointment. Due to the appointment, he escaped almost certain death.[25]

All of the buildings at the World Trade Center, including buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, were destroyed or damaged beyond repair on September 11, 2001. After a protracted dispute with insurers over the amount of coverage available for rebuilding World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5, a series of court decisions determined that a maximum of $4.55 billion was payable and settlements were reached with the insurers in 2007.[26]

Insurance dispute
The insurance policies for World Trade Center buildings 1 WTC, 2 WTC, 4 WTC and 5 WTC had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion. Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view, and the matter went to court. Based on differences in the definition of "occurrence" (the insurance policy term governing the amount of insurance) and uncertainties over which definition of "occurrence" applied, the court split the insurers into two groups for jury trials on the question of which definition of "occurrence" applied and whether the insurance contracts were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation or the "two occurrence" interpretation.

The first trial resulted in a verdict on April 29, 2004, that 10 of the insurers in this group were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation, so their liability was limited to the face value of those policies, and 3 insurers were added to the second trial group.[27][28] The jury was unable to reach a verdict on one insurer, Swiss Reinsurance, at that time, but did so several days later on May 3, 2004, finding that this company was also subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation.[29] Silverstein appealed the Swiss Re decision, but lost that appeal on October 19, 2006.[30] The second trial resulted in a verdict on December 6, 2004, that 9 insurers were subject to the "two occurrences" interpretation and, therefore, liable for a maximum of double the face value of those particular policies ($2.2 billion).[31] The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.[32] An appraisal followed to determine the value of the insured loss.

In July 2006, Silverstein and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a lawsuit against some of its insurers, for refusing to waive requirements of the insurance contracts that Silverstein claimed were necessary to allow renegotiation of the original July 2001 World Trade Center leases. This litigation, was settled together with the federal lawsuits and appraisal, mentioned in the prior paragraph, in a series of settlements announced on May 23, 2007.[33][34][35][36] Silverstein's lease with the Port Authority, for the World Trade Center complex, requires him to continue paying $102 million annually in base rent.[37] He is applying insurance payments toward the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site.[32]

In March 2007, Silverstein appeared at a rally of construction workers and public officials outside of an insurance industry conference to highlight what he describes as the failures of insurers Allianz & Royal and Sun Alliance to pay $800 million in claims related to the attacks. Insurers cite an agreement to split payments between Mr. Silverstein and the Port Authority as a cause for concern.[38]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein#World_Trade_Center.
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=144682]Sirris[/MENTION]

Read the paragraphs above. There are too many coincidences.

 

[sweep_shot]

Robert was giving us reasons why the UK is still a powerful nation, trident etc but we have Turkey giving us aid now.

No matter what the evidence some cannot accept their own government or the great western liberal democratic governments (or their agencies) will kill their own people. Heck they dont even believe Iraq was state terrorism on a huge scale.

I think Robert underestimates how low CIA is willing to go in order to achieve their objectives.

Again, CIA is just a tool for deep state (which is the head of the snake).

 

[KingKhanWC]

I think Robert underestimates how low CIA is willing to go in order to achieve their objectives.

Again, CIA is just a tool for deep state (which is the head of the snake).

Nah, it's just too hard for some to fathom. Not suggesting Robert but majority in the UK and US are brainwashed into believing their nations are the good guys, when history quickly proves otherwise.

 

[Gilly]

This has turned into a anti west thread, who would have thought that.

 

[sweep_shot]

This has turned into a anti west thread, who would have thought that.

Not anti-west thread. More like anti-deep-state thread.

There are many western folks who reject official 9/11 narrative.

 

[Bigboii]

This has turned into a anti west thread, who would have thought that.

You sound like an old white dude for some reason who's hurt when he hears something different from what he believes is the right thing

 

[Sirris]

I don't want this to be another "Was 9/11 an inside job" thread. This might be one of the biggest debates on the internet and I am not interested in it.

I want to concentrate on the facts.

We know there are radical jihadist groups like AQ who have praised such attacks and justify them. Bin Laden was guilty. Bin Laden was hunted down and killed. Justice was served for those who lost their loved ones in those terror attacks.

We also now know, thanks to the CIA officials speaking out, that Bill Clinton was negligent in hunting down Bin Laden, who had announced Jihad against USA in 1996 and was threatening them with attacks! Not only that there were many terror attacks carried out by Bin Laden's men before 9/11 like the bombing of embassy in Kenya. The threat Bin Laden posed should have been clear to everyone who has accepted the responsibility to protect Americans. And it was taken seriously be CIA officials working on the case. However, the man in charge, Bill Clinton was not only negligent but he specifically ordered and signed the verdict not to kill him! His negligence cost many people their lives and caused great destruction.

I am interested in these remarks by the CIA official:

“The threat was real,” he says. “And if President Clinton had taken action and killed Osama bin Laden, there wouldn’t have been a 9/11, and if there wouldn’t have been a 9/11 there wouldn’t have been an Afghanistan, and if there wouldn’t have been an Afghanistan there wouldn’t have been an Iraq. What would the world be like?”

It is a powerful and thought provoking quote.

If I drive a car recklessly and kill somebody, I will have to face the law and some sort of penalty will be announced against me. My decision to over-speed won't go unpunished, no matter how pure at heart I might be.

Being a President of a country is not just a great honor but also a great responsibility. One chooses to be a President and works hard to gain the public's trust and win the elections. The President among other promises to protect the countrymen!

My question therefore, should Bill Clinton's negligence of such high magnitude be left unaccounted? Is it just? Are we supposed to take like it is, the chief in charge is allowed to be reckless and as a direct result cause a lot of suffering and he has to never account for his bad decisions?

This is the question I would like to focus on here.

Then after Bill Clinton we had Bush. His case is clear. He lied openly about Weapons of Mass destruction, claimed Saddam has link with al-Qaeda and had a role in 9/11. These accusations were used to attack Iraq and justify the war. Weapons of Mass destruction were never found and Saddam's link and role in 9/11 could never been proven even though he was put in front of a trial Which then became an "let's put Saddam to court" thing.

He too can get away with his lies, manipulation, bad decisions and there is no way to hold him accountable. His decisions led to destruction of two countries and effected lives of 50+ million people and caused millions to become refugees. He gets to walk away with a smile under tons of applause. Is that justice?

Can we really dream to live in a peaceful world, when justice is only enforced on the weak, while the powerful ones get to carry on with their lives and no one can hold the accountable? Justice is supposed to be blind.

 

[Sirris]

This has turned into a anti west thread, who would have thought that.

What do you consider to be anti-West?

Criticizing the negligence and bad decision made by leaders of western countries like USA or UK?

For me anti-West would be for instance, to make remarks against Western values like Secularism and free speech and asking for those values to be eliminated from the western countries. Anti-West would be to promote chaos and hatred in western societies.

Believing in conspiracy theories is widespread all over the globe. Many redneck Americans consider it to be an inside job. That alone can't be considered anti-West.

 

[Kashmirilion]

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] and others who think everything is a conspiracy theory but not factual. Read about operation northwoods!! If that don't prove nothing to you then you shall remain blind forever.

 

[Robert]

100%.

It was not American government but deep state. American government is a puppet of the deep state.

Do you think there is no deep state?

I would say that the British Civil Service is highly influential, but still subject to Government scrutiny so there are checks and balances.

It makes no sense at all for Americans to make war on their own people, and ours too. Seventy Britons died in 9/11. Why would they commit an act of war on their staunchest ally? You have to ask who would benefit and the answer is nobody.

 

[Robert]

Robert was giving us reasons why the UK is still a powerful nation, trident etc but we have Turkey giving us aid now.

No matter what the evidence some cannot accept their own government or the great western liberal democratic governments (or their agencies) will kill their own people. Heck they dont even believe Iraq was state terrorism on a huge scale.

If there was any real evidence I might, but there isn’t, just easily debunked innuendo.

 

[AAli98]

I would say that the British Civil Service is highly influential, but still subject to Government scrutiny so there are checks and balances.

It makes no sense at all for Americans to make war on their own people, and ours too. Seventy Britons died in 9/11. Why would they commit an act of war on their staunchest ally? You have to ask who would benefit and the answer is nobody.

Conspiracy theorists have a few tell tale characteristics.... Do you know any?

1) They will reject every other news source but will never question their own news which is mostly unverified fake news or an outrageous opinion parading as fact.

2) They will call you sheep for listening to other news sources but in reality are sheep and slaves to their own conspiracy theory masters. They are drip fed fake news whilst being convinced to shut out all other sources of information......This way, they can be controlled like dancing puppets to their conspiracy theory masters.

3) They will say 'do your research' but research to them is looking for anything that agrees with their pre- concieved views and rejecting any evidence that disagrees... That's not how credible scientific research is done.

4) They believe in conspiracies because it makes them feel clever and educated. They feel they have discovered something that has been missed or eluded by everyone else, but in reality they have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire of fake news.

They've left science behind and replaced it with old fashioned superstition.... that's a major backwards step for acquiring sound knowledge and advancing society forward.

They accuse the rest of us of being lost or asleep and consider themselves awake, but in reality they have constructed an imaginary world in which they are awake but blind to everything else in the real world..

They are lost but insist on showing us the way... They are victims of the conspiracy theory mind control game....but they know it not...
God help them....

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] and others who think everything is a conspiracy theory but not factual. Read about operation northwoods!! If that don't prove nothing to you then you shall remain blind forever.

The proposed false flag operation that was rejected by Kennedy? How can something that was proposed but didn’t happen in 1962 prove that something different happened in 2001? It’s a non sequitur.

The value of conspiracy theory is to test one’s ability to think critically.

 

[Robert]

There are so many questions.

Why did Building 7 go down in a free fall?

BTW, there are many Americans who believe 9/11 was an inside job. Here's one such group: https://www.ae911truth.org/.

Because debris from WTC 1 struck it and set it on fire. The internal sprinklers could not cope and the internal supports buckled and the building collapsed.

You think that if the CIA wanted records destroyed then it might have been easier to use, say, a cross-cut shredder? Or a nice secure incinerator?

 

[Robert]

Anyway back to the OP.

I suppose that Clinton didn’t want to do something that would make USA look aggressive once again.

I disagree with the final quote in the OP however. Bush would have found some other reason to attempt regime change in Iraq.

 

[MRSN]

I would say that the British Civil Service is highly influential, but still subject to Government scrutiny so there are checks and balances.

It makes no sense at all for Americans to make war on their own people, and ours too. Seventy Britons died in 9/11. Why would they commit an act of war on their staunchest ally? You have to ask who would benefit and the answer is nobody.

I disagree with you here. That Bush administration was hell bent on having more influence in south Asia and countries like Iraq, Syria. What do you think was the reason they attacked Iraq? They killed thousands of innocent people because they said Iraq had nuclear weapons which was later revealed to be a lie. So don't believe a word they say.

This war on terror has killed and affected Muslims more than anyone else. I don't think common Muslims had anything to do with terrorism but when you bomb cities and make people unemployed and leave them at the mercy of your funded terrorists they will turn these innocent people into terrorists.

 

[MRSN]

in Pakistan alone 80k people lost their lives and were affected severely by the fall of economy. These terrorists were so trained and advance in weapons that it took our army 8 years to clear most of Pakistan from them.

Also evidently CIA and America funded Mujahideen(Talibans) against Soviets and the current Afghan govt. which turned Afghanistan into a mess they are today. It is not like Americans have their hands clean. They deserve all the criticism they get for the loss of thousands of innocent lives.

 

[Robert]

I disagree with you here. That Bush administration was hell bent on having more influence in south Asia and countries like Iraq, Syria. What do you think was the reason they attacked Iraq? They killed thousands of innocent people because they said Iraq had nuclear weapons which was later revealed to be a lie. So don't believe a word they say.

This war on terror has killed and affected Muslims more than anyone else. I don't think common Muslims had anything to do with terrorism but when you bomb cities and make people unemployed and leave them at the mercy of your funded terrorists they will turn these innocent people into terrorists.

Several reasons. Firstly the American neocons such as Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove saw that USA had emerged from the Cold War as the sole superpower and was much more free to shape the world in its own image. Iraq was to undergo regime change first and would of course default automatically to democracy. Syria would follow, then Saudi.

Secondly because Saddam was defying the world in resisting UNSCR 1441 as much as he could, nudging the line that would provoke military enforcement. Had he openly and fully divested himself of WMDs then Bush would have had a weaker moral case for war and found it harder to convince the House of Reps, but Saddam chose to passively resist Hans Blix.

Thirdly I think Bush just wanted to impress his father by going further and liberating Iraq. He was not very capable intellectually, and subject to domination by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

 

[Robert]

in Pakistan alone 80k people lost their lives and were affected severely by the fall of economy. These terrorists were so trained and advance in weapons that it took our army 8 years to clear most of Pakistan from them.

Also evidently CIA and America funded Mujahideen(Talibans) against Soviets and the current Afghan govt. which turned Afghanistan into a mess they are today. It is not like Americans have their hands clean. They deserve all the criticism they get for the loss of thousands of innocent lives.

Hey, wait a minute.

There was a popular uprising against the Afghan government in 1979 and that government asked the Soviets for help. They put a massive deployment into Afghanistan to crush the rebellion. The US helped the rebels by training them and equipping them with Stinger missiles to bring down Soviet gunships. Eventually the Soviets left, exhausted by a decade of war and Chernobyl. But Afghanistan was destroyed.

At that point the US should have stepped in with help to rebuild the wrecked nation - infrastructure such as hospitals and schools, industry development and cultural links. But they turned their backs, and the Taliban took control of the ruins, taking Afghanistan back to medieval theocracy.

 

[MRSN]

Hey, wait a minute.

There was a popular uprising against the Afghan government in 1979 and that government asked the Soviets for help. They put a massive deployment into Afghanistan to crush the rebellion. The US helped the rebels by training them and equipping them with Stinger missiles to bring down Soviet gunships. Eventually the Soviets left, exhausted by a decade of war and Chernobyl. But Afghanistan was destroyed.

At that point the US should have stepped in with help to rebuild the wrecked nation - infrastructure such as hospitals and schools, industry development and cultural links. But they turned their backs, and the Taliban took control of the ruins, taking Afghanistan back to medieval theocracy.

I disagree. They should have never interfered with their infighting and instead should have supported the govt. instead of rebellion aka terrorists. If I go by your logic should Russia, China and some other countries help Talibans fight US and NATO forces so the rebellion can take over like they did against Soviets.

This has been a pattern followed by US forces everywhere. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia. They first support rebels to kick the selected govt. and once the rebels are in charge, US acts like a good guy trying to bring back democracy when in fact they are the one who helped these terrorists take over in the first place. The latest example can be seen in Syria. Can you imagine proxy wars of US, KSA and Iran has killed thousands of people and wrecked their economy and the war is still going on only because everyone wants their favourite stooge to lead in Syria.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

CIA, the most holy and trust worthy organisation.