Are you the spokesman for the Pentagon?
To be honest yes. Do you believe me?
Uncle Sam was not "forced" to blunder into the graveyard of empires
"Uncle Sam" could of course conceivably have left Afghanistan as a safe haven for the fanatical international jihad brigades to plan and execute subsequent mass atrocities and in addition build their central Asian caliphate in from which they hoped to overrun the entire world.
The Taliban
offered up the person purportedly culpable for the attacks if Washington could furnish evidence of his complicity
Do you entertain doubts that OBL was in at least some way involved with the WTC attacks?
and Bush rejected negotiations out of hand,
Do you seriously think the likes of the Taliban can be "negotiated" with? Do you understand the role "negotiations" play in jihad tactics as formulated by the Taliban's role model "prophet" Muhammad and expanded upon by Muslim jurists and theologians down the following centuries?
proving that for whatever reason Sam went into the Hindu Kush it could not have been to secure the arrest of the towelhead.
Flawed premises of course lead to flawed conclusions.
And the attentats on the twin towers were executed not by Afghans,
They were executed by the fanatical soldiers of the transnational Umma which subsumes all national and ethnic identities like "Afghan".
The attacks were carried out by Saudis of the Salafi persuasion of Islam
As opposed to what "persuasion"?
that is bankrolled by the House of Saud with whom Bush publically held hands and their aviation training was conducted in Florida and Hamburg. In short, the Taliban had nothing to with the attacks.
They were allowing their country to be used as a training camp for the international jihad brigades to spread murder and mayhem accross the world.
Nor Iraq.
I personally did not agree with the invasion of Iraq which was launched on flimsy pretexts by blinkered rightwing ignoramus business lackeys who naively thought they could set up a Latin-American-style US puppet regime that would jump to the tune of the US oil giants. What they got was death and chaos which inevitably erupts sooner or later when the Muslim masses are given "freedom".
These wars constitute an act of imperial aggression and are both illegal. That's right, Afghanistan has no UN mandate.
Ultimately raw power trumps all. The US was attacked. The US did what it saw its national interest required and its military might allowed it to do without serious opposition. In the case of Afghanistan I make them right. Not an ideal situation, but somewhat better I think than if the Ummah possessed the military might of the US.
It is non state actors funded in large part and conscripted from a key Western ally, namely Saudi Arabia.
Absolutely right. These "non-state-actors" are the modern ghazi battalions of the transnational entity known as the Muslim Ummah - pursuing the modern version of the centuries-old Islamic strategy of preliminary "softening up" raids to undermine the enemies of Allah economically and morally as a precursor to full-scale military territorial occupation. The Muslims will of course have no compunction about hiding behind their hated "national identities" when it suits them. Or put another way "It weren't us PAKISTANIS. It was those SAUDIS".
If you can imagine the US raining down missiles on the House of Saud you can do something I cannot.
Indeed, the west with its hunger for oil is in a dance with the devil.
Topic: Wafa Sultan : Speak harshly and carry a stick