0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 02:35 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Lash
Quote:
And, how did "we" invent Al Qaeda?


Well, there was no group named 'Al Qaeda' before we named it such. Al Qaeda literally transalates to 'the group.' It is a term that was coined by our intelligence community to describe the loose confederation that was working with OBL at the time.

By naming them, we give them legitimacy. We help to create our own enemies. And I don't even need to bring up the fact that it was the CIA who funded the training of OBL in the first place, do I? Talk about the Law of Unintended Consequences coming around to bite ya in the ass....

Cycloptichorn


On whose blankety blank watch did all that happen?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 02:40 pm
Please do not read Cycloptichorn's baseless meanderings as the truth ican.

You can read all about al qaeda here.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 02:43 pm
Setanta wrote:
As i recall from my reading well before the first Gulf War, our support for the mujahadin in Afghanistan after 1978 drew "non-Afghan" fighters to the region. When bin Laden showed up with some access to his families millions, the CIA decided to use him as a conduit for funds they wished to funnel into the country. I have always read that Al Qaeda means "the base," and that the significance was that foreign mujahadin arrived there to be equipped and trained at the expense of the CIA.

This sort of activity--i.e., the recruitment and deployment of mujahadin from throughout the Muslim world--was evident in Bosnia, as well, although not to the same extent. By that time, bin Laden had become disenchanted with American support, because his background as a Wahabbi lead him to vociferously object to the presence of infidels in the Saudi kingdom. Of course, by then, American funding was no longer needed, the system was up and running, and all the key players had gotten the extensive training and operational experience they needed.

True! Then spending money bin Laden left Afghanistan for Saudi Arabia. After Saudi Arabia evicted him, bin Laden spending money went to Sudan. After Sudan evicted him, bin Laden spending money went back to Afghanistan. Then bin Laden spending money sent those of his trainees not captured or killed in Afghanistan to Iraq, Syria and Iran. And then bin Laden ...... Question
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 02:49 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Please do not read Cycloptichorn's baseless meanderings as the truth ican.

You can read all about al qaeda here.


Thanks! More importantly, so can everyone else! :wink:
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 02:53 pm
Interestingly, the ealiest mentioned source in McG's link is of 10 Feb 1995 (without online link).

When, however, you look further at FAS.org (that's McG's linked website), you'll find this:

Quote:
In order to avoid direct connections with unsavory Afghani groups, the CIA primarily funneled arms and money through Pakistan Army. s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The ISI ended up pilfering large quantities of the weapons and directing the rest to groups of its own choosing. The ISI gave arms to groups it considered less threatening to Pakistan, which turned out to be some of the most radical Islamic factions, which were as hostile to the West as they were to the Soviets. U.S.-funded military training camps in Pakistan also took in radicals from other Muslim countries looking to wage a holy war against the Soviets and the West. Osama bin Laden helped create housing for the multitude of foreign fighters, naming the camp and ultimately his group of followers . The Base," or Al-Qaeda.
Source
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 02:56 pm
See? You can read all about it there.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 03:07 pm
McGentrix wrote:
See? You can read all about it there.


And why didn't you provide that different link :wink:
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 03:29 pm
The Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted from 1978 to 1992, so it is certain that unless one can prove that Carter started the CIA program to funnel mujahadin, money and arms into Afghanistan, it took place "on the watch" of a Republican president--either Ray-gun or Pappy Bush.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 03:44 pm
Setanta wrote:
The Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted from 1978 to 1992, so it is certain that unless one can prove that Carter started the CIA program to funnel mujahadin, money and arms into Afghanistan, it took place "on the watch" of a Republican president--either Ray-gun or Pappy Bush.
Laughing

Does that mean that if one can't prove X happened, then does that mean X didn't happen?

Carter: elected November 1976; served January 1977 to January 1981.
Regan: elected November 1980; served January 1981 to January 1989.
Bush 41: elected November 1988; served January 1989 to January 1993.
Clinton: elected November 1992, served January 1993 to January 2001.
Bush 43: elected November 2000, served January 2001 to May 2005 (so far).

Unless one can prove Bush 43 did it, Bush 43 didn't do it.

History, ain't it wonderful?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 04:15 pm
From Alex Constantine's link: "How a Schizophrenic Foreign Policy Led to Deadly Domestic Terrorism

In its March 30, 1993 issue, The Village Voice broke a shocking story connecting the growth of US-aided Muslim militance in Afghanistan with the February bombing of the World Trade Center.

Here's the upshot of the Voice's massive cover story, written by Robert I. Friedman:

The US government's financial and military support of the mujahedeen rebels in Afghanistan created fertile ground for the organizing and training of revolutionary, fundamentalist Muslims, who had their sights set on opponents other than the Soviet-backed government - namely the United States. As has been the case in other proxy wars, the US' strident support of the mujahedeen led to some unsavory by-products."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 04:26 pm
Read this link if you think you can handle the truth.
http://www.nothingnewunderthesun.org/alciada.htm
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 05:33 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Al Qaeda was funded with $3 billion by the USA, just because they wanted them to group, e.g. to centralise the mujahideen resistance movements against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Something more, which ran out of the rudder ... and out of memory of some.

OBL lost what he had left of his mind when he was thrown out of Saudi.

He had gone to them to ask their permission to rescue Kuwait. He's had delusions of grandeur since he was young--and an inferiority complex because his mother was one of his father's whores. She wasn't even Wahhabi.

Instead of allowing him to be the "great Wahhabi warrior" he felt he had to be to overcompensate for his Satanic mother, he was unceremoniously thrown out of his beloved, sacred shithole of a sandpile--and the US was brought in. Saudi treated us--the evil Satan (see a theme here--Satan more popular than OBL...) with respect and treated OBL like the trash he was.

I think it is overdone--trying to somehow blame the US for AQ.

It made sense to help our enemy's enemy. It saved US service people. It is not our fault he turned out to be psychotic.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 05:49 pm
The statement that helping Al Qaeda in Afghanistan saved US service people is without foundation. We were not militarily involved, and there was never any movement for us to become militarily involved.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 05:58 pm
During the Cold War, every skirmish the Soviets fought, ultimately required our attention.

It was in the best interests of the US to counterbalance Soviet gains.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 05:59 pm
Which is not at all, of course, the same as suggesting that sending money to Afghan mujahadin saved US service people.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 06:05 pm
Setanta: Please pay attention.

Quote:
It saved US service people. It is not our fault he turned out to be psychotic.


Now, Setanta, is the important part??
Quote:
It saved US service people.


No.

The important part is

Quote:
It is not our fault


Joe (learning to love the learning curve.)Nation
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 06:06 pm
Lash wrote:
During the Cold War, every skirmish the Soviets fought, ultimately required our attention.

It was in the best interests of the US to counterbalance Soviet gains.

Well, yeppers for sure, with Vietnam and Grenda being shinning examples.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 06:07 pm
Lol. I suspect they knew there was something a wee tad wrong with Hussein and Noriega - not to mention the mass-murderer Pinochet etc when they were funding THEM!

But, truly - a fanatical Islamist wanting to make holy war against the Russians? Not know he was likely to be a wee tad dangerous - especially funded and weaponed?

Jesus wept.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 06:23 pm
And his tears have proven to be of no avail . . .
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 06:30 pm
It is worth noting that we pay people who are employed in our intelligence services to be competent at what they do, which entails making useful assessments of the meaning of information as well as simply gathering it. However, given that there was a close personal relationship between Pappy Bush and more than simply a few Saudis, and keeping in mind that Pappy Bush was once head of Central Intelligence, as well as Vice President during the era of the Soviet War in Afghanistan--this, too, stinks to high heaven, as does nearly every major transaction of the Bush clan since Prescott Bush came squawling out of his mother's womb in Columbus, Ohio, one hundred ten years ago.

Funny, but here in the Columbus area, with so many staunch Republicans, and a Republican administration ensconced in the State House, no one ever stresses the Bush connection. Perhaps that's because Flora and Samuel Bush were the 19th century equivalent of upwardly mobile trailer trash, and the steel industry in Columbus (once quite big, and still significant) resented the use of political connections to make a killing in the steel industry during the Great War. Of course, i could just be imagining it all.

http://www.scripophily.com/webcart/vigs/buckeyesteelplantbush1.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/05/2024 at 04:03:26