TSA catches another terrorist

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Quote :

so you think we should just let AL Qaeda get away with the crimes they commit?

No. Use international courts and the rule of international law to prosecute them. Criminal behavior. If we blow up a bunch of people we just validate the crazy shit they say. We fulfill their prophecy.


The crips and the bloods have killed more than 15,000 people in the last 30 years in the USA. But, since they're black, no one cares about those deaths.


America GET YOUR PRIORITIES IN ORDER!

so wolfs stance is forget terrorism lets focus on locking up the crips and bloods.

I guess there can't be a world where we fucking do both

But wolf what about the rights of the crips and bloods that your going to be violating?

A specific, clearly defined policy with specific limits and a finite time limitation that could never be expanded beyond the scope of the specific problems of violent gangs in ghettos. Very specific language to prevent these from being used later by a police state or to infringe on the rights of Americans in open ended fear policies like the searching of little kids in wheelchairs by the gov at airports. Unlike the anti-terror laws which have ambiguous scope and perpetual jurisdiction, these policies would not be open ended.

The constitution forbids US troops from being deployed inside the borders of the US. And that should ABSOLUTELY be respected. Since I would bring all of our troops home, slash tons of spending and shrink the military, there would be soldiers in need of work who already have Team America World Police training. Some units I would transfer over to state and civil authorities. Neighborhoods and communities where there are high numbers of crimes that assault the life, liberty, personal property or freedom of other American citizens, would be patrolled and protected by these police. They would NOT be allowed to have any powers that police do not currently have under the constitution, they would simply be an armed presence in the areas that are unsafe for people to travel through. Where there are high numbers of murders or robberies.

Oggy, how would you feel about this idea? A wild-west environment like the inner city is more of a violation of libertarian principles than this don't you think?

This would coincide with the end of illegal drug and prostitution prohibition. Street gangs and the culture that funnels minorities, especially blacks into gangs will lose significant power once the black market for drugs and prostitution is eliminated. Street gangs are criminal enterprises above all else. When their revenue stream is destroyed and they have nothing to shoot each other over, they'll stop shooting.

remember what I said about living in fantasy land?

oggy420 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

you say keep safe, i say violate civil liberties. If i had the choice between the maximum amount of freedom, and a maximum amount of security, freedom always wins in my book. You should never have to sacrifice liberty for security, never.

hahah ok oggy set up your own airline where anyone can get on board and bring whatever the hell they went on board, and do whatever the hell they want on board and see how well that goes.

Thats what you said, straight from the horses mouth, maximum freedom

i said if i had to choose one or the other, i would choose freedom over a police state. That doesn't mean i don't think there is a role for Gov, defense and security. Not what i am saying. There definitely is a role for defense and intelligence, but they must play by the rules like everyone else, and respect constitutional rights and civil liberties. I am 100 percent against torture, secret arrests, secret military prisons, FEMA camps, and other things along those lines. Those are not characteristics of a morally good free society. More like authoritarian, you add the huge power grab started under Bush, then ramped up 10x by Obama, and now the executive branch is now the judge, jury, executioner and due process is over, just like that. I will never agree with these things.

Oh yea those who said i was crazy for saying Obama was anti-2nd amendment, look up the video of Eric Holder in 95 literally saying he wanted to brain wash the public with anti-gun ad's similar to the one's being used against Cigarettes.

Oggy your getting pretty hysterical here, TSA and security = police state, now you are onto Holder and cigarettes lol.

Oh boys it took y'all 3 hours to respond and this is what I get? Wolfs mythical political aspirations and TSA = police state?

Those are probably myths right now, but those are what would work. Those are real answers.


But fuck it, they're not gonna happen. I suppose we should keep killing millions of people over mythological dangers, enslaving people for drugs over mythological dangers, printing mythological money and giving it to black people so they have just enough money to fuel illegal institutions like gangs and drug rings that lead to their deaths and keeps them vulnerable and exploitable - while selling them mythological notions of social equality and freedom.

Besides, without the ghetto gang culture, you wouldn't have a fake identity to secondarily acquire once you hit puberty, right homie?

lol sorry im not waiting at my computer waiting for you to regurgitate the same tired arguments

im not hysterical, there is absolutely a police state being set up in this country. If you want to be blind to that fact, ok, but it doesn't mean it isn't going to effect you eventually too. But people like you probably like getting felt up before they board a plane. It makes you feel safe while normal people feel violated.

Ya basically everything he has said boils down to "terrorists scary, Israel good, muslim bad"

Ignoring all the civilian deaths we caused and Israel has caused. Take the facts you need, the genocides you need, and ignore the rest to pick a side.

Me and Oggy don't pick ANY side. We criticize Israel only to show they're NO BETTER. There is NO VALID SIDE. Just bring it on home. Leave these fruitcakes to fight about their ancient holy books.

I support a foreign policy that puts America first. Not Israel's bitch, not the policemen of the world hunting every bad guy across the globe. This leaves us vulnerable, hated, and over extended. Bring the troops home, defend our borders, and if someone is dumb enough to come over here and fuck with us we declare war, win it, and come home. No more nation buliding. We need to build this nation, our home. People here are hurting bad right now and could use some help. More wars, more death, more anger, will not help anyone.

And why did you conveniently skip over the fact that the US military troops and veterans far and away support the stance that we have been making, support Ron Paul's foreign policy more than all the other candidates combined?

It's hard to say you support the troops if you aren't even willing to listen to what they have to say.

Ohh, and i'll read whatever you want. Just read one book. The Revolution by Ron Paul. That is all i ask. Ludwig Von Mises and FA Hayek are also some of my favorite authors.

I fully support TSA and what they do no matter if it's a black baby or an old white lady. I don't fly anyway but they could grab my junk if they thought I might have a bomb. I'm the kinda guy that will moan in pleasure to make them feel stupid though, so don't think I am 100% on their side. I would love to go thru one of those x ray machines they have. There would be some nut and dick clackin going on. They would def have to tell me to move along when those balls and dick start smacking around.


Just my take guys!

They've used babies and senior citizens before. Frisk the fuck out of those little shits

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Ya basically everything he has said boils down to "terrorists scary, Israel good, muslim bad"

Ignoring all the civilian deaths we caused and Israel has caused. Take the facts you need, the genocides you need, and ignore the rest to pick a side.

Me and Oggy don't pick ANY side. We criticize Israel only to show they're NO BETTER. There is NO VALID SIDE. Just bring it on home. Leave these fruitcakes to fight about their ancient holy books.

wolf doesn't know how to read cause I have pointed out good muslims that are OUR FRIENDS , like Saudi Arabia, Sada,t Ahmad Shah Massoud. Oh wolf you suck at comprehending things.

Birdofthad wrote:

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Ya basically everything he has said boils down to "terrorists scary, Israel good, muslim bad"

Ignoring all the civilian deaths we caused and Israel has caused. Take the facts you need, the genocides you need, and ignore the rest to pick a side.

Me and Oggy don't pick ANY side. We criticize Israel only to show they're NO BETTER. There is NO VALID SIDE. Just bring it on home. Leave these fruitcakes to fight about their ancient holy books.

wolf doesn't know how to read cause I have pointed out good muslims that are OUR FRIENDS , like Saudi Arabia, Sada,t Ahmad Shah Massoud. Oh wolf you suck at comprehending things.

lmao. enough said. clownshoes kid.

Ahmad Shah Massoud tried warning us multiple times about what a threat the Taliban and AQ was.
"If President Bush doesn't help us," Massoud told reporters in Strasbourg a few days later, "then these terrorists will damage the United States and Europe very soon{ndash}and it will be too late."

Anwar al Sadat - for proclaiming you want us to leave everyone alone for peace, you mock a man that brought the first real peace to the middle east.

Saudi Arabia is our ally I guess you can't comprehend that.War cost 61 billion, allies paid for 54 billion. See the difference between a justifiable war with a global coalition, and the opposite (Iraq War).

http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~fhoran/gulf/GW_cost/GW_payments.html

Birdofthad wrote:

Ahmad Shah Massoud tried warning us multiple times about what a threat the Taliban and AQ was.
"If President Bush doesn't help us," Massoud told reporters in Strasbourg a few days later, "then these terrorists will damage the United States and Europe very soon{ndash}and it will be too late."

Anwar al Sadat - for proclaiming you want us to leave everyone alone for peace, you mock a man that brought the first real peace to the middle east.

Saudi Arabia is our ally I guess you can't comprehend that.War cost 61 billion, allies paid for 54 billion. See the difference between a justifiable war with a global coalition, and the opposite (Iraq War).

http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~fhoran/gulf/GW_cost/GW_payments.html

LMAO. You missed the point. Clown shoes to list two or three Muslims who prove you don't have anti-Muslim sentiment. Two of em have been dead for years. Mossoud ten 10, Sadat 30!

We didn't give a shit about Mossoud dude. We didn't support him at all against the Taliban and Pakistan in the late 90s, and the DIA refused to even cooperate or listen to what he said. They FIRED agents for talking to him and prevented his intel about the Taliban and Osama training Arab fighters for Jihad from being released. Mossoud specifically and by name blasted Saudi Arabia and Musharraf, our best friends, for funding the Taliban. The state deptartment's robin raphel tried to get mossoud to surrender to the taliban, this same motherfuck then became a lobbyist for Pakistan and now serves again in the Obama administration. Open your eyes dude. Mossoud was getting assistance from the Shanghai Five so we didn't want shit to do with him. The whole thing stinks bro. We knew Osama was there and training arab fighters but we basically hid that information. I think the US wanted the Taliban in there to destabilize the region against the emerging SCO, and we were cushy with the ISI and Pakistan elements.

While the Taliban was harboring Osama and was specifically opposed to Israel and clearly an enemy, at the time they were a threat to the emerging SCO, which we see as an economic regional threat and a counter balance to India for the Pakistanis who we were in bed with big time. There is also the idea that we wanted Osama to gain in strength so he could commit more attacks, justifying a full scale invasion of multiple countries. There is opium, oil and lithium factors in this equation as well.

Saudi Arabia, our supposed ally, was one of the only countries who recognized the Taliban. The corruption, brutality, double dealing, lying and snake in the grass political strategy of the the royal family is disgusting and we only support them because of OIL. They fund terrorism, run a brutal regime of oppression, support a jihadist culture, yet also double deal with Israel in order to stop a mutual threat to both of them, Iran. Because they give us money to help cover the costs of protecting their horrible kingdom does not an ally make. The royal family knows how to survive.

This whole thing is entangled all over the place. Our allegiances have absolutely no moral basis and all our enemies over there are as brutal and blow up as many villagers as our enemies. Petty fear mongering and appeals to morality are lies. These wars are strictly over resources and protecting Israel and the Saudi royal family.

Its none of our business at all. Our economy is wrecked. Fuck all these motherfuckers.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

Ahmad Shah Massoud tried warning us multiple times about what a threat the Taliban and AQ was.
"If President Bush doesn't help us," Massoud told reporters in Strasbourg a few days later, "then these terrorists will damage the United States and Europe very soon{ndash}and it will be too late."

Anwar al Sadat - for proclaiming you want us to leave everyone alone for peace, you mock a man that brought the first real peace to the middle east.

Saudi Arabia is our ally I guess you can't comprehend that.War cost 61 billion, allies paid for 54 billion. See the difference between a justifiable war with a global coalition, and the opposite (Iraq War).

http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~fhoran/gulf/GW_cost/GW_payments.html

LMAO. You missed the point. Clown shoes to list two or three Muslims who prove you don't have anti-Muslim sentiment. Two of em have been dead for years. Mossoud ten 10, Sadat 30!

We didn't give a shit about Mossoud dude. We didn't support him at all against the Taliban and Pakistan in the late 90s, and the DIA refused to even cooperate or listen to what he said. They FIRED agents for talking to him and prevented his intel about the Taliban and Osama training Arab fighters for Jihad from being released. Mossoud specifically and by name blasted Saudi Arabia and Musharraf, our best friends, for funding the Taliban. The state deptartment's robin raphel tried to get mossoud to surrender to the taliban, this same motherfuck then became a lobbyist for Pakistan and now serves again in the Obama administration. Open your eyes dude. Mossoud was getting assistance from the Shanghai Five so we didn't want shit to do with him. The whole thing stinks bro. We knew Osama was there and training arab fighters but we basically hid that information. I think the US wanted the Taliban in there to destabilize the region against the emerging SCO, and we were cushy with the ISI and Pakistan elements.

While the Taliban was harboring Osama and was specifically opposed to Israel and clearly an enemy, at the time they were a threat to the emerging SCO, which we see as an economic regional threat and a counter balance to India for the Pakistanis who we were in bed with big time. There is also the idea that we wanted Osama to gain in strength so he could commit more attacks, justifying a full scale invasion of multiple countries. There is opium, oil and lithium factors in this equation as well.

Saudi Arabia, our supposed ally, was one of the only countries who recognized the Taliban. The corruption, brutality, double dealing, lying and snake in the grass political strategy of the the royal family is disgusting and we only support them because of OIL. They fund terrorism, run a brutal regime of oppression, support a jihadist culture, yet also double deal with Israel in order to stop a mutual threat to both of them, Iran. Because they give us money to help cover the costs of protecting their horrible kingdom does not an ally make. The royal family knows how to survive.

This whole thing is entangled all over the place. Our allegiances have absolutely no moral basis and all our enemies over there are as brutal and blow up as many villagers as our enemies. Petty fear mongering and appeals to morality are lies. These wars are strictly over resources and protecting Israel and the Saudi royal family.

Its none of our business at all. Our economy is wrecked. Fuck all these motherfuckers.

all of this was in 1999 and 2000, If we can kill someone before they carry out a massive attack on our country, it does matter. http://www.rawa.org/massoud_cia.htm

The CIA recruited Afghan agents who traveled or lived in the region, an area of heavy smuggling and trade and relatively weak Taliban control. Through their liaison in the Panjshir, CIA officers pushed intelligence-collection equipment to Massoud's southern lines, near Jalalabad. Besides radio intercepts, the technology included an optical device, derived from technology used by offshore spy planes, that could produce photographic images from a distance of more than 10 miles. Massoud's men, with help from CIA officers, set up an overlook above Derunta and tried to watch the place.

The Counterterrorist Center's bin Laden unit relayed a report to Massoud that bin Laden had arrived in Derunta. Massoud ordered a mission. He rounded up "a bunch of mules," as a U.S. official who was involved later put it, and loaded them up with Soviet-designed Katyusha rockets. He dispatched this small commando team toward the hills above Derunta.

After the team was on its way, Massoud reported his plan to Langley: He was going to batter bin Laden's camp with rocket fire.

The CIA's lawyers convulsed in alarm. The White House legal rules for liaison with Massoud had not addressed such pure military operations against bin Laden. The Massoud partnership was supposed to be about intelligence collection. Now the CIA had, in effect, provided intelligence for a rocket attack on Derunta. The CIA was legally complicit in Massoud's operation, the lawyers feared, and the agency had no authority to be involved.

The bin Laden unit shot a message to the Panjshir: You've got to recall the mission.

Massoud's aides replied, in effect, as a U.S. official involved recalled it: "What do you think this is, the 82nd Airborne? We're on mules. They're gone." Massoud's team had no radios. They were walking to the launch site. They would fire their rockets, turn around and walk back.

Langley's officers waited nervously. Some of them muttered sarcastically about the absurd intersections of U.S. law and secret war they were expected to manage. Massoud's aides eventually reported back that they had, in fact, shelled Derunta. But the CIA could pick up no independent confirmation of the attack or its consequences. The lawyers relaxed and the incident passed, unpublicized.

but you stated we weren't working with him, once again proving you don't know jack.

Our limited involvement was due to the fact the Iranians were the Northern Alliances primary funders among the other reasons I listed.

Quote :

"When she got to the Panjshir Valley, she found... something vital to America's security was happening, something she was not really able to discover when she visited the Taliban-controlled areas before. Commander Massoud told her that he was facing a new enemy in Afghanistan [meaning foreign esp. Arab forces].... Apparently, bin Laden, who was making Afghanistan into his base of operations, was importing Islamic radicals from all over the world, training them as terrorists and killers and then sending them up against Massoud's troops.... She only had a short time, but she collected enough information for a preliminary report, and she headed home. The minute she got back, she found herself under severe restrictions at the Defense Intelligence Agency and restricted to whom she could brief or show any of her reports.... The commanding officer of the DIA labeled her as insubordinate, he fired her; and when she fought her dismissal, he set out to destroy her. Amidst the fight to save her job, the DIA commanding officer told her what really upset him most was her contact with Massoud, who, according to the DIA general, was one of the bad guys. This general was sending his people to be briefed by the Taliban, but any contact with Massoud was a cause for dismissal.... It was a mind set of the man who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency. Something is terribly wrong with this picture."[27]
—U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, to U.S. Congress in 2004

In the meantime, the only collaboration between Massoud and another U.S. intelligence service, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), consisted of an effort to trace Osama bin Laden following the 1998 embassy bombings.[60] The U.S. and the European Union provided no support to Massoud for the fight against the Taliban.

We left him high and dry to to Iran, corrupt ties with Pakistan and the Shang Five.


Fact. It is propaganda to assume otherwise.

Is Dana Rohrabacher lying?

look at wolf changing positions after being proven to not know shit once again

wolf you don't know shit, it is clear, you say bullshit, I hit you with facts, your next post is 5 hours later and changes topics but hopefully it skews facts in your favor

I though we didn't help Massoud?

Now you change story after your google search lmao

Explain how I changed my position at all. Do you even read my posts? They say the exact same things

Everyone knows the US was not jumping up and down to help Mossoud before 9-11. We were only marginally involved to find Osama. We tried to get him to surrender to the Taliban.

Is that helping? Is asking him to surrender helping?

If Saudi Arabia was our ally why were they directly funding the Taliban?

Answer only those questions. Do not change the subject. You have nothing. You refuse to answer any of my questions.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Explain how I changed my position at all. Do you even read my posts? They say the exact same things

Everyone knows the US was not jumping up and down to help Mossoud before 9-11. We were only marginally involved to find Osama. We tried to get him to surrender to the Taliban.

Is that helping? Is asking him to surrender helping?

If Saudi Arabia was our ally why were they directly funding the Taliban?

Answer only those questions. Do not change the subject. You have nothing. You refuse to answer any of my questions.

Wolf I post you factual data showing Massoud was determined to be our man in Afghanistan SEPT. 4 2001

Keep ignoring facts and changing your main line of arguments, ill be standing here with history and facts

Sept 4th? And he dies days later and the towers falls days after that. This shit smells worse and worse as time goes on honestly. The more we talk and the more I investigate this stuff, the worse it all feels. Why did just days before the attack did we 'determine him to be our man' when he was leading the NA the whole time?


I take it you didn't read your link. It backs up 100% of what I said dude. I said we left him high and dry in the late 90s. Exact words. From your own link ;

Quote :

Massoud was at war with the Taliban. The United States had declared a policy of official neutrality toward that war as a co-sponsor of all-party peace talks, which dragged on inconclusively. Clinton enacted economic sanctions against the Taliban but was unwilling to fund or arm Massoud. The White House sought to ensure that the CIA's counterterrorism mission in the Panjshir Valley concentrated only on bin Laden. The administration did not want the CIA to use its intelligence-collection and counterterrorism partnership with Massoud for a secret, undeclared war against the Taliban

Also from your own link

Quote :

...US kept Massoud and his resistance at arm's length, perhaps because they were receiving weapons from Iran, with logistical aid from Russia and the Central Asian republics. According to a Human Rights Watch report on the regional weapons trade, one Iranian shipment seized in Kyrgyzstan in 1998 contained ammunition for T-55 and T-62 tanks, antitank mines, 122mm towed howitzers and ammunition, 122mm rockets for Grad multiple launch systems, 120mm mortar shells, RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades and small arms ammunition.

Quote :

Early in September 2001, Massoud's intelligence service transmitted a routine classified report to the CIA's Counterterrorist Center about two Arab television journalists who had crossed Northern Alliance lines from Kabul.

The intelligence-sharing between Massoud and the CIA concentrated mainly on Arabs and foreigners in Afghanistan. In this case officers in the bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center took note of the movement of the two Arab journalists. It did not seem of exceptional interest.

Members of the Bush Cabinet met at the White House on Sept. 4. Before them was a draft copy of a National Security Presidential Directive, a classified memo outlining a new U.S. policy toward al Qaeda, Afghanistan and Massoud.

It had been many months in the drafting. The Bush administration's senior national security team had not begun to focus on al Qaeda until April, about three months after taking office. They did not forge a policy approach until July. Then they took still more weeks to schedule a meeting to ratify their plans.

Among other things, the draft document revived almost in its entirety the CIA plan to aid Massoud that had been forwarded to the lame-duck Clinton White House -- and rejected -- nine months earlier. The stated goal of the draft was to eliminate bin Laden and his organization. The plan called for the CIA to supply Massoud with a large but undetermined sum for covert action to support his war against the Taliban, as well as trucks, uniforms, ammunition, mortars, helicopters and other equipment. The Bush Cabinet approved this part of the draft document.

Those two arab journalists ended up killing him. Real fucking fishy that all those events came together in the first 11 days of September. Im getting physically ill reading all this. One day all this will be known to history.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Sept 4th? And he dies days later and the towers falls days after that. This shit smells worse and worse as time goes on honestly. The more we talk and the more I investigate this stuff, the worse it all feels. Why did just days before the attack did we 'determine him to be our man' when he was leading the NA the whole time?


I take it you didn't read your link. It backs up 100% of what I said dude. I said we left him high and dry in the late 90s. Exact words. From your own link ;

Quote :

Massoud was at war with the Taliban. The United States had declared a policy of official neutrality toward that war as a co-sponsor of all-party peace talks, which dragged on inconclusively. Clinton enacted economic sanctions against the Taliban but was unwilling to fund or arm Massoud. The White House sought to ensure that the CIA's counterterrorism mission in the Panjshir Valley concentrated only on bin Laden. The administration did not want the CIA to use its intelligence-collection and counterterrorism partnership with Massoud for a secret, undeclared war against the Taliban

Also from your own link

Quote :

...US kept Massoud and his resistance at arm's length, perhaps because they were receiving weapons from Iran, with logistical aid from Russia and the Central Asian republics. According to a Human Rights Watch report on the regional weapons trade, one Iranian shipment seized in Kyrgyzstan in 1998 contained ammunition for T-55 and T-62 tanks, antitank mines, 122mm towed howitzers and ammunition, 122mm rockets for Grad multiple launch systems, 120mm mortar shells, RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades and small arms ammunition.

Quote :

Early in September 2001, Massoud's intelligence service transmitted a routine classified report to the CIA's Counterterrorist Center about two Arab television journalists who had crossed Northern Alliance lines from Kabul.

The intelligence-sharing between Massoud and the CIA concentrated mainly on Arabs and foreigners in Afghanistan. In this case officers in the bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center took note of the movement of the two Arab journalists. It did not seem of exceptional interest.

Members of the Bush Cabinet met at the White House on Sept. 4. Before them was a draft copy of a National Security Presidential Directive, a classified memo outlining a new U.S. policy toward al Qaeda, Afghanistan and Massoud.

It had been many months in the drafting. The Bush administration's senior national security team had not begun to focus on al Qaeda until April, about three months after taking office. They did not forge a policy approach until July. Then they took still more weeks to schedule a meeting to ratify their plans.

Among other things, the draft document revived almost in its entirety the CIA plan to aid Massoud that had been forwarded to the lame-duck Clinton White House -- and rejected -- nine months earlier. The stated goal of the draft was to eliminate bin Laden and his organization. The plan called for the CIA to supply Massoud with a large but undetermined sum for covert action to support his war against the Taliban, as well as trucks, uniforms, ammunition, mortars, helicopters and other equipment. The Bush Cabinet approved this part of the draft document.

Those two arab journalists ended up killing him. Real fucking fishy that all those events came together in the first 11 days of September. Im getting physically ill reading all this. One day all this will be known to history.

I interpret our CIA giving him 200,000 dollars monthly in late 90's and weapons helping him, you can make your own opinion

smells fishy to you? god you are a numb nuts.

The northern alliance where there when the two journalist with Saudi credential blew up there camera that killed Massoud. One of Massouds right hand men was in the room and survived the blast. The main journalist who was to question Massoud started asking Massoud practice questions before he blew him up.

Know who all of his questions referred to? Osama Bin Laden. Massoud had called Bin Laden what he was, a terrorist, long before 9-11. His Northern Alliance (with Rashid Dostum) was the sole resistance to the Taliban from 1996 to 2001, they controlled only 10% of the countries territory and over 3 million people fled to their territory where they had a school system, police system, and were way more relaxed than Taliban rule (must grow beards, no t.v., no photos, burkas, etc.).

Massoud was killed by Bin Laden as a deal sealer between Al Qaeda and the Taliban. 2 days before 9-11, the sole charismatic opposition commander of the Taliban opposition was killed. You do the math mister fishy. Bin Laden was doing Mullah Omar a huge favor and Omar was about to do Bin Laden a high favor when he refused to hand him over.

Or you can believe that some how, america thought it was a good idea to kill the leader of the northern alliance, plan 9-11 (not sure if this is your stance or not), then go team up with what was left of the northern alliance in our fight against the taliban (that is what we did).

No, I tend to believe that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were behind Massouds death, the 1998 embassy bombings, the USS Cole bombings and 9-11.

There is that theory, or the theory the CIA did the killing so they could totally control the puppet leader with the coming invasion. See, Massoud would know AQ and Taliban tactics better than anyone. For him to get suicide popped seems unlikely. And the CIA we know knew about the Arab journalists. What if they told him, oh they're fine, allow the interview...?

It is just weird we show him NO real love and wanted to keep him at arms length, and suddenly we're going to fund his war and them BOOM hes dead and then BOOM the towers.

This is either a tremendous coincidence and yet another reason to not be getting involved over there, or it is a clear cut sign we needed him out of the way. He would never have been a puppet...