U.S. Troops invade Afghanistan....again

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Didn't we liberate these guys already?? The timing of this action seems to be slightly suspect, don't ya think...? Trying to create the illusion of an Iraq/Al Qaeda tie are we...?


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/inte...t&position=top

March 19, 2003
U.S. Troops Raid Afghanistan for al - Qaida
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 11:31 p.m. ET

BAGRAM, Afghanistan (AP) -- About 1,000 U.S. troops launched a raid on villages in southeastern Afghanistan Wednesday night, hunting for members of the al-Qaida terrorist network, military officials said.

Helicopters ferried troops from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division to the remote, mountainous area as the hunt for Osama bin Laden and his terror network intensified.
-30-

[El Blanco]

Or it could just be the US continuing its commitment to stabalize Afghanistan. Don't you think you're reaching just a little?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Just like I was reaching on the Bush press conference, when it turned out that the question about faith "I'll BET you have a question" was staged...?

My point is why do this today? You see nothing symbolic at all in doing it right now? Why not last week, or tomorrow, or 3 days ago...?

[ItalianStereotype]

if they had attacked last week, or 3 days ago, or whatever, you would probably have said much the same thing. it wouldnt be much of a stretch to accuse them of trying to take international attention away from iraq.

[Abcdxxxx]

they'll turn up bin laden magically. i wouldn't even be shocked if they drag his ass to bahgdad so they could "discover" him there.

[GAsux]

Come on now. That will never happen. There is no time for that. The U.S. military is busy murdering innocent Iraqi children and raping women and the CIA is busy planting WMD in Baghdad. Who has time to drag bin Laden around.

How about we stick to one conspiracy at a time.

[The_Rorschach]

Kevin: Trying to create the illusion of an Iraq/Al Qaeda tie are we...?

Actually, that was my take on it too. By making the strike against the five Iraqi military leaders, unnamed as of my last hearing, and against the Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, I think Bush was using the two in tandem to create the appearance of linking them. . .If not factually, at least in the minds of Americans who saw strikes against both launched at roughly the same time.

He's been trying to convince us all there were ties, and while there are, they aren't enough to substantiate an alliance between the two. Guilty by association, to voice an old axiom, is what he's using now.

[FS]

If they manage to completely take Baghdad, it wouldn't hurt to finally come up with some evidence that completely justified the attack. So, I suppose that could be terrorists hiding in Saddam's wine cellar, anthrax in an elementary school, a small nuclear reactor stashed under someone's bed, etc.

[Helm]

small nuclear reactor stashed under someone's bed

lol

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The_Rorschach

Actually, that was my take on it too. By making the strike against the five Iraqi military leaders, unnamed as of my last hearing, and against the Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, I think Bush was using the two in tandem to create the appearance of linking them. . .If not factually, at least in the minds of Americans who saw strikes against both launched at roughly the same time.

He's been trying to convince us all there were ties, and while there are, they aren't enough to substantiate an alliance between the two. Guilty by association, to voice an old axiom, is what he's using now.

Come on now, that argument makes no logical sense to ANYBODY. Stop being such a conspiracy theorist.