Do you deny that the CIA built training camps and provided munitions for the Mujahadeen as the US was fighting its war by proxy with the Soviet Union?
Do you think it possible that out of all the Arabs fighting the Soviet occupation, the charismatic and organisationally-gifted Osama bin Laden was the only one who didn't benefit?
PROVE IT. PROVE to me that the CIA didnt FUND OsamabinLaden and the 'AFghan Arabs.'
PROVE it.
PROVE PROVE PROVE PROVE it one single SSSSSHHHHRRRREEEED of 'evidunce' that they dint'd;t do itt.\\
Yes just I thought perpetuate the lie why bother telling the truth? yes mmm. i am not really alright in the head i hear voices and i want to eat cold soup and drive fast i am covered in spittle but it's not spittle it's my brain leaking OH GOD I LOVE YOU ANNE COULTER
i don't know what the big deal is, at the time i remember being in favor of it.
an excerpt from the interview with zbigniew brzezinski:
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Wait...doesn't this mean that SDW is wrong whenever he attributes the fall of the U.S.S.R. to Ronald Reagan??!?
I'm not seeing bin Laden there or his "afghan arabs". Taliban != bin Laden's group.
There is good information out there.
Please people ... proof.
oh obdurate scott....
here's an article written before 9/11. from the BEEB
from which i'll quote:
Quote:
Born in Saudi Arabia to a Yemeni family, Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.
i suppose this isn't proof, you'd need video or something (perhaps oliver north giving him a suitcase full of cash, and a C-130 full of things that blow up real good......but none of this is any big secret, it's common knowledge, we (the united states) aren't denying it, are we?
When you read the interviews with the actual CIA operatives that were there helping the afghans fight off the soviets they say that hey never had anything to do with bin Laden or his group. They say that even at that time bin Laden and his group were so anti-american they, CIA, never could have gotten close to them and never tried.
But don't let reality get in the way of a good anti-american lie.
That BBC article is interesting because it highlights one of the major problems with the BBC these days. Two sources. Most journalists like to have two sources of information when publishing some contentious information. The BBC has the same policy but obviously doesn't follow it. They get one quote that sounds good and they'll print it no matter how untrue or unsubstantiated it is. Always with the disclaimer "according to". After the whole David Kelly fall out the BBC can't be taken seriously as a new source any more.
well that's a bunch of hooey for two reasons, it was written before 9-11,
and as i said before this isn't a bone of contention with anybody, nobody will deny the relationship, and as i said it was lightyears before all this mess began.
actually, obdurate scott, i would like, nay, i demand proof that the american government is denying there was a relationship during the afghan soviet war.
Just prove the "Afghanistan/bin Laden's mujahadeen" part. You can't just add that "/" in as if "mujahadeen" == bin Laden. Bin Laden and his group were in Afghanistan at that time. Along with others. The US helped people there to fight the soviets. Please provide proof that the people the US help was bin Laden and/or his group.
This is simple right? Everyone "knows" this. Please prove what we all "know".
I'm sorry, I must pipe up. These conversations drive me nuts.
Let's remember what we are talking about here:
US did help Iraq and the Afghans. So what? The US was trying to stabilize the region. I mean, who else has the guts to try this, france? Who would have known that by helping those people it would backfire. Who would have known that SH would become mentally unstable an ruin his country and hate ours as a result? Who would have known that OBL would develop from all of that? Hind site is 20/20, right?
As far as terrorist/al qeada ties to Iraq. I do not see too many people really having clarity on this subject:
Has anyone heard Jeff Foxworthy's "you might be a redneck thing"? Well try "you might be a terrorist if..."
Terrorists run free in that whole region, they are everywhere and involved in everything. The only real differences are in their affiliation names. Same motis operandus, same tactics, same hate for democracy and freedom, same desire to kill innocent people to make a point, same value of human life, none.
Having said all that, events leading up to and including 9/11 proved to any clear thinker that these people have declared war on free and law abiding people everywhere.
If you are a world leader what do you do, knowing that terrorism runs rampant in the middle east and elsewhere, knowing there are counties such as iraq that not only have WMD and are willing to and have used them. (need we mention the kurds) ? 9/11 upped the stakes and proved that if they wanted they could bring the battle to the US. Up to that period they were merely a nuscence. I would bet that if they did not exist already, that plans for bigger and deadlier attacks began developing at a breakneck pace.
GWB made a decision to nip it in the bud. He may go down in history as entering a controversial war, but he will not go down as president that did nothing and let potentially tens of thousands or more people die for lack of resolve. I think he made the right choice. If you really think he had a choice.
I'm glad that he did not wait for all of you that wanted proof that there was some kind of connection. We would still be waiting and could have been attacked again and more people could have died or been hurt and the economy tanks once again. It could be like living in Israel, do you want that?
You folks are being too tough on Scott (eh, Hassan, what's up with that?).
IMO:
The US didn't fund ObL. Everything I've read indicates that we didn't know who ObL was until after the Gulf War, let alone the Afghanistan war. Sure, we supported the Mujahedin, but not the Taliban, who didn't come to power until much later. ObL was marginally involved with the Mujahedin, but his role was greatly exaggerated in retrospect in order to improve his bio among the jihadis. The CIA probably had no contact whatsoever with ObL.
Furthermore, while our involvement in Afghanistan may have been primarily to give the Soviets a black eye, is there really anything wrong with supporting a country being invaded by an expansionist totalitarian state? We were actually on the right side in that one. Haven't you people seen Rambo III? Sheesh.
A better case can be made against US policy in Iraq in the 1980s. He was clearly a bad guy when we supported him, and playing both sides of the Iran-Iraq war is the ultimate cynicism. We explicitly took Iraq off the state-supported terrorism list in the 1980s, and we were friends with him right up until virtually the day he invaded Kuwait.
I think it's clear that the whole Iraq mess over the last 12 years could have been avoided with some good preventive medicine. I don't think the same is true of ObL.
As I understand it Scott agrees that we funded numerous Mujahadeen groups to fight the soviets. I've found several articles (including an article from the ultra-left wing Forbes magazinne) that state that we funded such groups as the Afghan Arabs. OBL was a member of at least one of these Afghan Arab groups. Appearantly, since the CIA doesn't keep a lot of receipts (and post them in the public domain) confirming exactly which Afghan groups we funded and their member's identities we are unable to prove that OBL got money from the US.
Wow, what a powerful argument! I'm surprised I don't see even one other right-winger on these boards arguing it. It's so persuasive, so compelling. Why isn't the National Review or any other conservative source using this? Or did they? A link would be just great!
The US didn't fund ObL. Everything I've read indicates that we didn't know who ObL was until after the Gulf War, let alone the Afghanistan war. Sure, we supported the Mujahedin, but not the Taliban, who didn't come to power until much later. ObL was marginally involved with the Mujahedin, but his role was greatly exaggerated in retrospect in order to improve his bio among the jihadis. The CIA probably had no contact whatsoever with ObL.
Now that is an argument. Much more productive than this X-filish, "Cmon guys, the truth is out there" crap. Frankly, I still think the argument isn't that compelling. I could care less if OBL himself got funding, fact is a bunch of fundamentalist whackos undoubtedly got training from us and now it's blowback.
Quote:
Haven't you people seen Rambo III? Sheesh.
Yes, and I still can't believe Stallone isn't making a Rambo IV. The plot of III was so conducive to another sequel. I imagined him having to go back and hunt down the Afghan Allies turned terrorists.
Comments
Do you deny that the CIA built training camps and provided munitions for the Mujahadeen as the US was fighting its war by proxy with the Soviet Union?
Do you think it possible that out of all the Arabs fighting the Soviet occupation, the charismatic and organisationally-gifted Osama bin Laden was the only one who didn't benefit?
Are you, in point of fact, gay?
PROVE IT. PROVE to me that the CIA didnt FUND OsamabinLaden and the 'AFghan Arabs.'
PROVE it.
PROVE PROVE PROVE PROVE it one single SSSSSHHHHRRRREEEED of 'evidunce' that they dint'd;t do itt.\\
Yes just I thought perpetuate the lie why bother telling the truth? yes mmm. i am not really alright in the head i hear voices and i want to eat cold soup and drive fast i am covered in spittle but it's not spittle it's my brain leaking OH GOD I LOVE YOU ANNE COULTER
i don't know what the big deal is, at the time i remember being in favor of it.
an excerpt from the interview with zbigniew brzezinski:
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Wait...doesn't this mean that SDW is wrong whenever he attributes the fall of the U.S.S.R. to Ronald Reagan??!?
There is good information out there.
Please people ... proof.
1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.
1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.
Originally posted by Scott
I'm not seeing bin Laden there or his "afghan arabs". Taliban != bin Laden's group.
There is good information out there.
Please people ... proof.
oh obdurate scott....
here's an article written before 9/11. from the BEEB
from which i'll quote:
Quote:
Born in Saudi Arabia to a Yemeni family, Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.
i suppose this isn't proof, you'd need video or something (perhaps oliver north giving him a suitcase full of cash, and a C-130 full of things that blow up real good......but none of this is any big secret, it's common knowledge, we (the united states) aren't denying it, are we?
When you read the interviews with the actual CIA operatives that were there helping the afghans fight off the soviets they say that hey never had anything to do with bin Laden or his group. They say that even at that time bin Laden and his group were so anti-american they, CIA, never could have gotten close to them and never tried.
But don't let reality get in the way of a good anti-american lie.
Life was particularly difficult today.
and as i said before this isn't a bone of contention with anybody, nobody will deny the relationship, and as i said it was lightyears before all this mess began.
Originally posted by Scott
Just prove the "Afghanistan/bin Laden's mujahadeen" part. You can't just add that "/" in as if "mujahadeen" == bin Laden. Bin Laden and his group were in Afghanistan at that time. Along with others. The US helped people there to fight the soviets. Please provide proof that the people the US help was bin Laden and/or his group.
This is simple right? Everyone "knows" this. Please prove what we all "know".
I'm sorry, I must pipe up. These conversations drive me nuts.
Let's remember what we are talking about here:
US did help Iraq and the Afghans. So what? The US was trying to stabilize the region. I mean, who else has the guts to try this, france? Who would have known that by helping those people it would backfire. Who would have known that SH would become mentally unstable an ruin his country and hate ours as a result? Who would have known that OBL would develop from all of that? Hind site is 20/20, right?
As far as terrorist/al qeada ties to Iraq. I do not see too many people really having clarity on this subject:
Has anyone heard Jeff Foxworthy's "you might be a redneck thing"? Well try "you might be a terrorist if..."
Terrorists run free in that whole region, they are everywhere and involved in everything. The only real differences are in their affiliation names. Same motis operandus, same tactics, same hate for democracy and freedom, same desire to kill innocent people to make a point, same value of human life, none.
Having said all that, events leading up to and including 9/11 proved to any clear thinker that these people have declared war on free and law abiding people everywhere.
If you are a world leader what do you do, knowing that terrorism runs rampant in the middle east and elsewhere, knowing there are counties such as iraq that not only have WMD and are willing to and have used them. (need we mention the kurds) ? 9/11 upped the stakes and proved that if they wanted they could bring the battle to the US. Up to that period they were merely a nuscence. I would bet that if they did not exist already, that plans for bigger and deadlier attacks began developing at a breakneck pace.
GWB made a decision to nip it in the bud. He may go down in history as entering a controversial war, but he will not go down as president that did nothing and let potentially tens of thousands or more people die for lack of resolve. I think he made the right choice. If you really think he had a choice.
I'm glad that he did not wait for all of you that wanted proof that there was some kind of connection. We would still be waiting and could have been attacked again and more people could have died or been hurt and the economy tanks once again. It could be like living in Israel, do you want that?
I don't want that. I feel for those people.
Any way my two pennies
Originally posted by NaplesX
The US was trying to stabilize the region.
Beyond satire.
IMO:
The US didn't fund ObL. Everything I've read indicates that we didn't know who ObL was until after the Gulf War, let alone the Afghanistan war. Sure, we supported the Mujahedin, but not the Taliban, who didn't come to power until much later. ObL was marginally involved with the Mujahedin, but his role was greatly exaggerated in retrospect in order to improve his bio among the jihadis. The CIA probably had no contact whatsoever with ObL.
Furthermore, while our involvement in Afghanistan may have been primarily to give the Soviets a black eye, is there really anything wrong with supporting a country being invaded by an expansionist totalitarian state? We were actually on the right side in that one. Haven't you people seen Rambo III? Sheesh.
A better case can be made against US policy in Iraq in the 1980s. He was clearly a bad guy when we supported him, and playing both sides of the Iran-Iraq war is the ultimate cynicism. We explicitly took Iraq off the state-supported terrorism list in the 1980s, and we were friends with him right up until virtually the day he invaded Kuwait.
I think it's clear that the whole Iraq mess over the last 12 years could have been avoided with some good preventive medicine. I don't think the same is true of ObL.
As I understand it Scott agrees that we funded numerous Mujahadeen groups to fight the soviets. I've found several articles (including an article from the ultra-left wing Forbes magazinne) that state that we funded such groups as the Afghan Arabs. OBL was a member of at least one of these Afghan Arab groups. Appearantly, since the CIA doesn't keep a lot of receipts (and post them in the public domain) confirming exactly which Afghan groups we funded and their member's identities we are unable to prove that OBL got money from the US.
Wow, what a powerful argument! I'm surprised I don't see even one other right-winger on these boards arguing it. It's so persuasive, so compelling. Why isn't the National Review or any other conservative source using this? Or did they? A link would be just great!
Originally posted by BRussell
The US didn't fund ObL. Everything I've read indicates that we didn't know who ObL was until after the Gulf War, let alone the Afghanistan war. Sure, we supported the Mujahedin, but not the Taliban, who didn't come to power until much later. ObL was marginally involved with the Mujahedin, but his role was greatly exaggerated in retrospect in order to improve his bio among the jihadis. The CIA probably had no contact whatsoever with ObL.
Now that is an argument. Much more productive than this X-filish, "Cmon guys, the truth is out there" crap. Frankly, I still think the argument isn't that compelling. I could care less if OBL himself got funding, fact is a bunch of fundamentalist whackos undoubtedly got training from us and now it's blowback.
Haven't you people seen Rambo III? Sheesh.
Yes, and I still can't believe Stallone isn't making a Rambo IV. The plot of III was so conducive to another sequel. I imagined him having to go back and hunt down the Afghan Allies turned terrorists.