Two questions for the critics....

[prole art threat]

If the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was a response to the country hiding Osama Bin Laden despite his so called 'complicity' with 9/11, then how come it was planned before September 11th, 2001.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4585010/

Secondly, Im very concerned about the meeting between the intelligence chairmen of the House and the Senate with Mahmoud Ahmed ( the alleged financier of Mohammad Atta) on the morning of September 11th. They were taking a cosy breakfast in Capitol Hill. I look forward to you attempting to whitewash this fact too.

I will let Professsor Michel Chussodovsky fill you in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=360fCOvFLaU

[Johnny Pixels]

[A Sharp Major]

Even if OBL hadn't been 'most wanted' militaries have plans for all sorts of senarios that will never happen. I expect the US have a plan for invading France (but not one for the aftermath). So having a plan for invading Afghanistan before it was needed shouldn't come as a surprise.

Ask your resident soldiers, (if I recall) Justin and Flamesong.

If Mahmoud Ahmed (the alleged financier of Mohammad Atta) was having breakfast in Washington on 9/11 so what? He's the alleged financer of Atta. Even if Ahmed turns out to be a bad egg, why wouldn't the head spook from a friendly nation have breakfast with big cheese?

Whitewash enough? :

[John White]

So your telling us the US was going to wage war on Afghanistan anyway then Pixels?

Why then was Bin Laden subsequently allowed to escape Tora Bora into Pakistan at the height of the campaign?

And why did the US not accept the Taliban's offer to hand Bin Laden over if it could show he had a connection to 9/11

Could it be...that he DIDNT have a connection to 9/11?

But that would point to...an inside job!

And the US lying to the public through its teeth about the reasons for the War...

[Johnny Pixels]

[John White]

You need to hit the research Pixels: the 9/11 commission is horribly pawned

[Johnny Pixels]

[Patrick Brown]

Pakistan
+
Muslim Nation
+
Zionists
=
Make Pakistan look bad.

[John White]

[Ignatz]

[Patrick Brown]

Zionists

[Johnny Pixels]

[John White]

It's very simple Pixels, and your incomprehension is simply showing your not properly informed on the subject matter

In suggesting that Afghanistan was going to happen to "get" Bin Laden anyway, whilst simultaneously having to square that with Bin Laden being allowed to escape at the height of the campaign, you are actually saying far more than you know!

As far as "selling" you Press for Truth is concerned, of course not, its free to access, but if you refuse to choose to take on the information, its hardly my problem, though interestingly revealing of the inner world that is your mind

[Hazzard]

The US military had OBL in their sights 11 times. Each time CIA gave them a no-go order, and told them to stand down and let him slip through their fingers.

White wash please.

[Dogsmilk]

Whether there was a conspiracy or not, the invasion of Afghanistan on the excuse of 911 was an outrage. You do not invade (wreck/kill civilians etc) a country to get hold of a terrorist, particularly when the ruling regime of that country has offered to hand them over on the production of hard evidence (an entirely reasonable position no matter how deplorable the regime). As Chomsky pointed out, on that logic Britain had the right (practicality aside) to attack America over internal US elements who backed the IRA. There are stacks of other examples - half the world should be at war with the United States if this were a general principle.
It's well documented, as critics concede, that an invasion (though I think wasn't it strikes that were talked about in the commission report? I can't remember and can't be arsed to look) was on the cards anyway. To think that was merely to get Bin Ladin (who Bush now says he's not that arsed about catching (!?)) is just naive.
It doesn't prove the CT, but I can't see how critics can deny they wanted into Afghanistan anyway (which does make the whole 911 thing 'fishy'). Bin Ladin was just an excuse. I mean, do you really think they'd invade just over Bin Ladin?! Come on!!!!

[prole art threat]

Mahmoud Ahmed had wired Atta $100.000 a short time before the attacks.

A Political Deception - 4 mins 10 seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=360fCOvFLaU

Listen carefully to this and feed your head.

[Johnny Pixels]

[prole art threat]

[Johnny Pixels]

[prole art threat]

[Johnny Pixels]

[prole art threat]

[Johnny Pixels]

[prole art threat]

[Johnny Pixels]

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

and no i dont know what the truth is, but im 100% cetain it aint all in the news and isnt everything we are told by those in power. and thats just logical. we all lie or have lied no matter who or what job you do or race. we are human what makes people think those that lead us are not capable when they have more power to pull it off. but again i dont know the truth, but neither do you critics. all i know is regardless of what is going off and why we are being lied to about a lot of stuff and being blindly led up the creek.

[prole art threat]

I would suggest that this cosy little meeting was indicative of 9/11 involvement.

Let us strip it down.

1. Of all days in the calendar, September 11th was the date they chose.
2. What was Mahmoud Ahmed doing wiring $100,000 to Mohammad Atta shortly before 9/11? This in itself shows a connection between Intelligence and Mohammed Atta.

It is my personal opinion that these three were exhibiting criminalistic behaviour patterns, by getting together to gloat over the 'big finale' which they helped to create and orchestrate.

Just like the arsonist who returns to the scene of his crime, shortly afterwards, to survey and savour his firestarting handiwork.

This is what I, personally, think.

[Johnny Pixels]

[prole art threat]