|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Feb 25th, 2003 09:16 PM | |||||
| GAsux |
Yup Kev, Agreed. My beef is that a lot of times I think people mistake incompetence for conspiracy. In this case for example, I don't think there was a concerted effort to fund "bad" guys who could potentially come back to haunt us. Rather, just horrible decision making to pump money into a system with no accountability. I'm sure plenty of "questionable" groups got money from the CIA, mainly because the CIA wasnt or couldnt monitor where it was going. Same with 9/11. I think 9/11 was less about conspiricay and more about incompetence and beuaracracy. I'm sure there were a shitload of signs that bad things were going down. I don't think they were ignored, they were just plain missed. Anyway, what is this thread about again? I'm so confused! 
|
||||
| Feb 25th, 2003 05:37 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Here's a little piece from the book "Bin Laden: The Man who declared war on America," written by Yossef Bodansky, who was a top advisor to both the departments of State and Defence during I BELIEVE during the term of Bush I. He has also been the director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare: All this time [during the Soviet invasion] the Afghan Jihad was gaining support in Washington, and more money was being appropriated for covert and not-so-covert support for the Afghan mujahideen. The U.S. was convinced that it was supporting a genuine national liberation struggle, albeit with a strong Islamic foundation, and Islamabad went to great lengths to ensure that the U.S. did not discover firsthand the kind of mujahideen the American taxpayers were supporting. Toward this end the CIA was isolated by the ISI (Pakistan's secret police) from the training infrastructure it financed. Brigadier Mohammed Yousaf, then head of the ISI Afghan Bureau, stressed that General Akhtar Abdul Rahman Khan, chief of the ISI from 1980 to 1987, "faced many problems with the Americans and the CIA." Akhtar adamantly refused American requests to train the mujahideen or even have direct access to them. "Akhtar never allowed Americans to become directly involved in the Jihad," Yousaf recalled. Akhtar and the ISI high command strongly insisted on "keeping Americans out" of the entire training and supply system they were sponsoring. So, I guess it varies by who you get the info from, but I think it's rather clear that we provided the infrastructure for Bin Laden's network, despite having little knowledge of what was REALLY going on. Still, whether or not we helped create it seems to be a moot point, and probably something we need to learn from and move on with. |
||||
| Feb 23rd, 2003 10:58 PM | |||||
| roonTing | HELM... they are called blinders you dumb fuck. Right now, the only military action going on in Afghanistan by American forces are one of two things... self-defense. And major dissarmament. Special Forces have been going village to village to gain information on where vast stores of weapons are hidden. These stores are then found, and destroyed. The role of Americans in Afghanistan right now is entirely as a peace keeper. Keeping one faction from attempting to do as the Taliban did. | ||||
| Feb 23rd, 2003 06:37 AM | |||||
| Helm |
Quote:
|
||||
| Feb 23rd, 2003 04:30 AM | |||||
| GAsux |
Kev... This from Peter Bergen, the now relatively famous CNN resident "bin Laden Expert" with regards to bin Ladens CIA ties.... **Note** In the previous post I mistakently implied that CIA funding went through Israel. Actually, it was Pakistan. My bad! "...One author charges the CIA had funded and trained the Afghan Arabs during the war. Another refers to the central role of the CIAs Muslim mercenaries. Both authors present these claims as axioms, but provide no real corroboration. Other commentators have reported that bin Laden himself was aided by the CIA. (*Here he quotes a Guardian atricle which staes that the CIA helped bin Laden build a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan in 1986)*. However, American officials rarely ventured into Afghanistan during the war against the Soviets for fear of handing the communists a propaganda victory. bin laden, meanwhile, had espoused anti American positions since 1982, and thanks to the fortune derived from his family's giant construction busniess had little need of CIA money. In fact, the underground camp at Khost was built in 1982 by an Afghan commander, with Arab funding. A source familiar with bin Laden's organization explains that bin Laden "never had relations with America or American officials. ...he was saying very early in the 80s that the next battle is going to be with America...No aid or training or other support have ever been given to bin Laden from Americans." Anyway, here is all I am getting at. I'm not trying to make some infallable claim that America does no wrong and everything was kosher with what went down in Afghanistan. I'm not that niave. But what I am saying is that I grow tired of the notion that the CIA, and the U.S. was somehow responsible for turning bin Laden in to some kind of Arnold-esque super terrorist commando. And even if they did, they did a piss poor job because even amongst Arabs there is little to suggest that bin Laden was a great warrior. His actual battlefield prowress is unsubstantiated. Most argue that his influence came with money and charisma, not CIA taught commando skills. Like I said, there are plenty of reasons, well documented at that, to criticize U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. I think the case that the CIA somehow was providing bin Laden himself some kind of hands on training that he later utilized in terrorism is shaky at best. |
||||
| Feb 23rd, 2003 03:19 AM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Re: Yeah Quote:
|
||||
| Feb 23rd, 2003 03:04 AM | |||||
| GAsux |
Yeah "Fucking Osama Bin Laden was then recruited, trained SOUP sent there to destroy the Afghan Communist regime" One of the most frequently and absolutely unsubstantiated claims made in regards to Al Queda. The CIA was definitely involved in funneling money into Afghanistan. However, virtually all of that money was done by intermediaries. The mistake the CIA made was to allow the Israeli agencies they were working through pick and choose who the money went to. Regardless, the idea that bin Laden was running around Afghanistan being personally selected to receive CIA training is utterly baseless. There is plenty of blame in the affair to go around to not need to resort to fabricated over-dramtizations. |
||||
| Feb 23rd, 2003 01:25 AM | |||||
| Mockery |
|
||||
| Feb 22nd, 2003 05:08 PM | |||||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
You also have 20 years worth of routine getting shaken up. Things are going to be tought for a while. Remember, an entire infastructure has to be built. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That region does not have a history of democracy. How the hell are they supposed to figure it out themselves? They need established governments to help them set up infastructure and make processes for doing things. This is all going to take a long time. |
||||
| Feb 22nd, 2003 10:41 AM | |||||
| Helm |
What the fuck? The war on Afghanistan was never for democracy and human rights. The political situation there has been getting quite worse than it originally was after the US stepping in. And if you'd like to take it that far, the 'fundamentalists' that established their 'tyrannical rule' there fifty years ago where originally funded by the US, because of the vast geopolitical importance of the ground that goes from Lybia to Afghanistan. Resources in oil, footing towards the east, cold war communism twarting, you name it. The US played it's role in part of the major transnational conglomerates, and you're talking about women's rights? Fucking Osama Bin Laden was then recruited, trained and sent there to destroy the Afghan Communist regime. And to top it all off, the struggling fractions that they've got there now aren't any better in terms of 'democratic spirit' than the ones they took down, they're just more easy to manipulate by the US. Where exactly do human rights come into play? How much do you know about that situation? |
||||
| Feb 22nd, 2003 06:40 AM | |||||
| FS |
Quote:
 I meant mostly that it was true that women were being oppressed under Taliban rule. But from what I've seen (which may or may not be very significant), people are gradually shrugging off the restrictions laid upon by the Taliban. There's still women walking around in burqas and people adhering to the old rules, but I figure that will pass in time. I don't expect them to just change their culture overnight. |
||||
| Feb 22nd, 2003 04:59 AM | |||||
| kinot |
Or unless the fact that the kid wanted to go home early or just look cool cause he's 'different' for 'standing up for what he believes for'  It's more like a fucking idiot trying to get some attention by exploiting the freedom of 'speech' (I always thought that speech that was free was really just the freedom to express ideas, not to get unnecessary attention)
|
||||
| Feb 22nd, 2003 01:39 AM | |||||
| Abcdxxxx |
holy shit, are you guys still trying to talk up saddam's good points? you do realize you can be anti-war without pretending Iraq's some democratic peacefull nation full of liberated free people. that t-shirt thing's screwy just the same way that girl who got sent home in california for saying she was pro-bush was screwy...or the teacher that burned a flag in front of her classroom...etc. etc. |
||||
| Feb 21st, 2003 05:41 PM | |||||
| El Blanco | Helm, you are right. There is still a long way to go. But, I often say democracy takes longer to develope than a polaroid. Why are people so shocked about the rough transition. Look at what we went through when we broke off from England. | ||||
| Feb 21st, 2003 03:52 PM | |||||
| Helm |
Quote:
|
||||
| Feb 21st, 2003 03:49 PM | |||||
| FS | Well, that's a no-brainer. The general public has to believe a war on Iraq means liberating its population, like in Afghanistan (though there it was mostly true). Saddam does oppress and abuse his people, but saying he's mean to women never hurts. | ||||
| Feb 21st, 2003 01:34 PM | |||||
| ranxer | i dont get why people keep saying women arent allowed in school in iraq.. my understanding is that it is one of the FEW middle east countries where women go to school. Saddam brought womens literacy from 6% or so to over 80% before the iran war.. now he's reversed that? not according to waht ive seen he didnt. | ||||
| Feb 21st, 2003 11:34 AM | |||||
| mburbank | The principle just wanted to see the kid with his short off. | ||||
| Feb 21st, 2003 06:28 AM | |||||
| FS | I don't understand why this school didn't feel justified in just sending the kid home for wearing a shirt bashing the president, like probably any school would. Instead they try and formulate a diplomatic excuse for doing it, thereby looking even more stupid and grossly condescending towards their Arabian-American students. | ||||
| Feb 20th, 2003 05:28 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
 is the only appropriate emoticon.I meant that what was being implied in the article was ridiculous. It wasn't an attack on you. Bombs, I agree, but I just found the underlying assumption in the article humorous. |
||||
| Feb 20th, 2003 05:25 PM | |||||
| BombsBurstingInAir |
Around here I've seen people wearing shirts that show a anti-war (read anti bush) protestor hung from a tree and other shirts that show a gun next to the head of an Arab saying "die motherfucken rag head." These people were sent home. Guess it is all in the eye of the beholder. |
||||
| Feb 20th, 2003 05:19 PM | |||||
| Ronnie Raygun |
You didn't know my reaction or that I would even respond to this thread. Try again. |
||||
| Feb 20th, 2003 05:16 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Your reaction is precisely why I refused to take it the "right" way. 
|
||||
| Feb 20th, 2003 05:16 PM | |||||
| FS |
Yes. They're not angry at this guy wearing a shirt. They're afraid all their ticking timebomb-terrorist students will simultaneously explode in their faces. Shirts like these can't be allowed until all of the Arabian-Americans have been properly stored in deathcamps. Did I say deathcamps? I meant happy camps... |
||||
| Feb 20th, 2003 05:12 PM | |||||
| Ronnie Raygun |
It didn't say "piss off". It said "inflame passions". That means that they might agree and start a Jihad and kill all the teachers in the name of Allah. Then they would take the skins of all the teachers and stuff it with straw making a 100 foot tall G.W.B. and burn it in effigy. Then they might beating all the females in the school because.....HEY! they shouldn't be there in the first place. "And put on your black sheet and cover your face.....JIHAD!" Seriously though.....I think you took it the wrong way. |
||||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||||
