PDA

View Full Version : Can an O-cultist explain this?



LWW
01-29-2011, 03:31 AM
Why did dear leader refuse even the meekest of support for the uprisings in Iran ... following a blatantly crooked election ... led by pro western and pro democracy groups against an enemy of the US and peace in the region and then ...

... lend support to Muslim extremists attempting to overthrow a long term US ally, which happens to be far more westernized and far closer to a working democracy than Iran?

I see this as potentially another "WELCOME BACK CARTER" debacle for the regime where we jettison an ally and promote the creation of another terror state in the region.

LWW

Sev
01-29-2011, 08:04 AM
Triangulation to be on the right side of history.

Soflasnapper
01-29-2011, 10:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The first half of Murawiec's presentation reads calmly enough, echoing Fareed Zakaria's Oct. 15, 2001, Newsweek essay about why the Arab world hates the United States. Its tribal, despotic regimes bottle up domestic dissent but indulge the exportation of political anger; intellectually, its people are trapped in the Middle Ages; its institutions lack the tools to deal with 21st-century problems; yadda yadda yadda.

But then Murawiec lights out for the extreme foreign policy territory, recommending that we threaten Medina and Mecca, home to Islam's most holy places, if they don't see it our way. Ultimately, he champions a takeover of Saudi Arabia. The last slide in the deck, titled "Grand strategy for the Middle East," abandons the outrageous for the incomprehensible. It reads:

* Iraq is the tactical pivot
* Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot
* Egypt the prize

Egypt the prize?

Because none of the Defense Policy Board attendees are talking candidly about the session, it's hard to divine what "Egypt the prize" means or if Murawiec's briefing put it into any context. It sounds a tad loopy, even by Dr. Strangelove standards. The Post report does mention a "talking point" attached to the 24-page PowerPoint deck that describes Saudi Arabia as "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" in the Middle East. That's extreme talk even by the standards of the anti-Saudi editorialists at the Weekly Standard and the rest of the invade-Iraq fellowship. </div></div>

Remember this? (http://www.slate.com/id/2069119/)

Soflasnapper
01-29-2011, 11:13 AM
That bare quote doesn't explain much, nor does it address why Obama didn't overtly support the Iranian uprising. So here goes:

First, that uprising was probably the result of western fomenting that Obama supported. The twitter and other social media organization of dissenting elements was probably our doing. However, the biggest excuse for the Iranian regime was that there was no legitimate internal dissent, that it was all outside agitation. (That was partially, but only partially, true.) To allow it the best chance of success, it was important that the US not be seen to be even cheerleading the effort, let alone offering any obvious tangible support. So, did you want Obama to do the only thing that could delegitimize the rebellion, so you could feel good we were pounding our chests (ineffectively and counterproductively)?

Now why is Obama supporting the Egyptian uprising? Why is he maybe supporting the Muslim Brotherhood? We have ALWAYS covertly supported the Muslim Brotherhood (they are a strategic tool of ours), just as in Iran, we support the MEK (another terrorist organization). But the Muslim Brotherhood isn't the prime mover in this case-- they're scrambling to get to the front of a parade that moved without them.

I have a bad feeling, based on the prior cited quote. My take is that eliminating Egypt as an effective regional military power due to a power shakeup is necessary to remove the largest potential opponent to an Israeli attack on Iran. If so, then we may be a short time away from such an attack, and the end of our world as we know it. Enjoy!

Soflasnapper
01-29-2011, 11:16 AM
the largest potential opponent to an Israeli attack

Maybe I should rephrase that, to largest potential REGIONAL opponent. Because, unfortunately, Iran has defense commitments from Russia, China, and yes, dear readers, from Iraq as well.

(Among the very first actions taken by the first new government of Iraq was to sign a mutual defense pact with Iran. Did you miss that one?)

LWW
01-29-2011, 04:33 PM
That was just precious.

LWW

Soflasnapper
01-29-2011, 06:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That was just precious.

LWW </div></div>

Borrowing from what Neo said, who was fighting two agents with one hand:

Hmmm. Ugraded deflection!

Stretch
01-29-2011, 07:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That was just precious.

LWW </div></div>

Borrowing from what Neo said, who was fighting two agents with one hand:

Hmmm. Ugraded deflection! </div></div>

Hahaha! St.

LWW
01-30-2011, 05:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That was just precious.

LWW </div></div>

Borrowing from what Neo said, who was fighting two agents with one hand:

Hmmm. Ugraded deflection! </div></div>

Hahaha! St. </div></div>

No, the "AMSWER" was doublethink gibberish.

It condensed down to Obama wouldn't support the Iranian uprising because he supported the Iranian uprising while he supports the Egyptian uprising because he doesn't support the Egyptian uprising.

Boiled down further it seems to confirm what I suspected ... whatever story the regime lays out will be accepted as "TRUTH" even if it violates prior "TRUTH"

LWW

pooltchr
01-30-2011, 07:28 AM
Hillary is on Meet the Press this morning...I will be interested to see how she explains the official position on the situation in Egypt. Do we support an ally for decades, or do we support rebels who want democracy?
I suspect what is not said will be as telling as what she actually says.
Steve

LWW
01-30-2011, 12:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now why is Obama supporting the Egyptian uprising? Why is he maybe supporting the Muslim Brotherhood? We have ALWAYS covertly supported the Muslim Brotherhood</div></div>

Evidenced by?

What's that?

Nothing?

Imagine that.

LWW

Soflasnapper
01-30-2011, 01:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now why is Obama supporting the Egyptian uprising? Why is he maybe supporting the Muslim Brotherhood? We have ALWAYS covertly supported the Muslim Brotherhood</div></div>

Evidenced by?

What's that?

Nothing?

Imagine that.

LWW </div></div>

I didn't supply any backup to that claim, I admit. Doesn't mean there isn't any, however.

Earlier British funding described here (http://markcurtis.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/britain-and-the-muslim-brotherhood-collaboration-during-the-1940s-and-1950s/)

From that linked article:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The British and Americans were by now involved in a variety of coup plots against Syria and Saudi Arabia, as well as Egypt, as part of a much bigger planned reorganisation of the Middle East to counter the ‘virus of Arab nationalism’. According to a top secret Foreign Office memo, US President Eisenhower described to the British the need for ‘“a high class Machiavellian plan to achieve a situation in the Middle East favourable to our interests” which could split the Arabs and defeat the aims of our enemies’.</div></div>

What was that Machiavellian plan? Among other things, it was to use the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood to try to remove Arab leaders like Nasser, Qadaffy and others. When the pro-US, pro-west King Idris of Libya was in our pocket, he provided safe haven for the Muslim Brotherhood when they were banned in Egypt. Qadaffy considered them his greatest threat.

Likewise, the MB offshoot Hamas was promoted for years by Israel as a counterweight to Fatah.

The US followed Britain's lead, and when they left the ME post-WW II out of semi-national bankruptcy, we entirely took over their use of MB to divide and conquer restive Arab leaders from their people.

LWW
01-30-2011, 03:06 PM
So your "PROOF" that the US has "ALWAYS" backed the MB is an article in a blog by British conspiracy theorist Mark Curtis ... who even at his worst claim is that the might have consulted the Brits on maybe using the MB against Soviet allies 60 years ago.

WOW! Just WOW!

LWW

Soflasnapper
01-30-2011, 07:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So your "PROOF" that the US has "ALWAYS" backed the MB is an article in a blog by British conspiracy theorist Mark Curtis ... who even at his worst claim is that the might have consulted the Brits on maybe using the MB against Soviet allies 60 years ago.

WOW! Just WOW!

LWW </div></div>

"PROOF"??? My, but how you do go on, don't you!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorances-- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

--Herbert Spencer</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> An analysis of our recent past--the second half of the twentieth century--shows there has been no conflict, but rather an alliance, between Christian and Muslim civilizations. One indicator of this alliance is that the vast majority of radical Islamic fundamentalist organizations, now considered terrorists, were once actively supported by the leaders of Christian civilizations. While the mainstream Western media have failed to inform their readers about this, the empirical evidence for such support exists. In his book Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, Robert Dreyfus documents extensively how the U.S. and U.K. governments supported the majority of Muslim fundamentalist associations (again, now defined as terrorists), and in fact played a key role in establishing and developing these groups. Dreyfus shows, for example, how both governments actively supported the establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s. This extremely violent group was started in Egypt and, with the support of Saudi Arabia, expanded throughout the Arab world. In the 1980s, the Muslim Brotherhood helped to establish the Movement of Islamic Resistance, known as Hamas, the radical Muslim Palestinian group that today governs the Palestinian people. Again in the 1950s, the U.S. and U.K. governments also supported the Mullahs (fundamentalist Muslim clerics) in Iran, led by Khomeini, who later became the leaders of that country. And the U.S. and U.K. governments also actively supported (with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) the Taliban in Afghanistan.</div></div>

These are dirty secrets that have been swept under the rug, so it's no wonder you haven't heard of them. In exile in Paris, Khomeini received a CIA check for years. Those horrible jihadi coloring books in Afghanistan, educating the youth in madrassas to fundamentalist hatred? Created, printed, funded and supplied by the US, to the tune of millions of dollars.

We made common cause with these radicals because they were anti-Communist. It was Brzrzenski's doctrine of the 'arc of crisis' that saw the soft underbelly of the '-stan' soviet republics with their large Muslim populations as ripe for exploitation to destabilize the Soviet empire.

LWW
01-31-2011, 12:28 AM
And again with the CT blog as "PROOF" ... adding in the myth that the Taliban was supported by the US.

Have you no shame?

LWW

JohnnyD
01-31-2011, 01:54 AM
Again LWW has won.

LWW
01-31-2011, 05:33 AM
Let's not relish the fact that the far left here is entranced by the blather of dear leader.

Let's pray for those who follow a cult that professes violence such as bringing guns to a fight, putting a target on the new congress, threatening hand to hand combat in congress, putting a target on members of their own party because they aren't moonbat crazy enough, and ordering their bot like followers to "get in their face" with political opponents.

Remember, this is the same group which beat a black man for stepping off the party plantation.

Violence is the way of the left. We should strive to follow in the path of peaceful resistance first as shown by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Junior.

LWW

Soflasnapper
01-31-2011, 11:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And again with the CT blog as "PROOF" ... adding in the myth that the Taliban was supported by the US.

Have you no shame?

LWW </div></div>

I offered these as evidence, not proof. (Please read Karl Popper on this distinction; you clearly don't understand the difference.)

Having no evidence yourself, you simply scoff with a repeated ad hominem about the source, which is a well-known fallacy of 'argument.' (i.e., no argument at all)

Yes, of course the US supported the Taliban (at one time). It's biggest sponsor was the ISI of Pakistan, and the ISI is mainly a creature and dominated by our CIA (as in their collaboration to control the poppy/opium/heroin traffic). The Clinton administration dealt with them for a time until they gave up, and then the Bush administration re-opened negotations with them, bringing them to Texas for talks on the Unocal pipeline plan.

Just as Eisenhower (for a time) supported Castro, and we also (briefly) supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, just as Noreiga, Saddam, Qadaffy, and yes, bin Laden, etc., were also our boys.

Sorry that the actual history offends your delicate sensibilities.

LWW
01-31-2011, 11:58 AM
You are so cute when you try to act educated.

Sadly, words do mean things ... and you shouldn't hate me for using them properly. Instead. you might try to improve your own vocabulary.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ev·i·dence   

1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
–verb (used with object)

—Synonyms
3. information, deposition, affidavit. Evidence, exhibit, testimony, proof </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">proof   

1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.
anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence)

OH MY! (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof)

LWW

LWW
01-31-2011, 12:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just as Eisenhower (for a time) supported Castro, and we also (briefly) supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, just as Noreiga, Saddam, Qadaffy, and yes, bin Laden, etc., were also our boys.

Sorry that the actual history offends your delicate sensibilities.
</div></div>

You have no clue of the actual history.

Bin Laden was never supported by the USA and I defy you to present actual evidence to that fact.

Now, for your edification:

1 - UBL and his posse came in to Afghanistan. The Afghans (Who are not Arabs mind you.) despised them and referred to them as "THE ARABS" when speaking of them.

2 - The US backed what was commonly called "THE MUJAHIDEEN."

3 - After the Soviets left, "THE ARABS" became what is commonly referred to as "THE TALIBAN" and UBL became the de facto leader by taking Mullah Omar ... a war hero who is completely out of his mind due to seizures resulting from shrapnel in his brain ... as a sock puppet king.

4 - "THE MUJAHIDEEN" became what was known as "THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE" and they fought an ongoing war against UBL's posse.

LWW

LWW
01-31-2011, 02:36 PM
Bump for sofanapper.

LWW

LWW
01-31-2011, 05:25 PM
Re bump.

LWW

JohnnyD
01-31-2011, 06:10 PM
Bump for yet another excellent post.

Soflasnapper
01-31-2011, 08:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just as Eisenhower (for a time) supported Castro, and we also (briefly) supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, just as Noreiga, Saddam, Qadaffy, and yes, bin Laden, etc., were also our boys.

Sorry that the actual history offends your delicate sensibilities.
</div></div>

You have no clue of the actual history.

Bin Laden was never supported by the USA and I defy you to present actual evidence to that fact.

Now, for your edification:

1 - UBL and his posse came in to Afghanistan. The Afghans (Who are not Arabs mind you.) despised them and referred to them as "THE ARABS" when speaking of them.

2 - The US backed what was commonly called "THE MUJAHIDEEN."

3 - After the Soviets left, "THE ARABS" became what is commonly referred to as "THE TALIBAN" and UBL became the de facto leader by taking Mullah Omar ... a war hero who is completely out of his mind due to seizures resulting from shrapnel in his brain ... as a sock puppet king.

4 - "THE MUJAHIDEEN" became what was known as "THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE" and they fought an ongoing war against UBL's posse.

LWW </div></div>

The Taliban are ethnic Pashtuns, the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan. They are neither foreigners nor Arabs, even though foreigners and Arabs indeed fought with them. Since the Afghans overall disliked the Arabs, it is hard to square the Taliban being Arab with their initial acceptance across Afghanistan overall (and their control of over 70% of the country). The people who weren't wild about them were other ethnicities, not Pashtuns.

Wikipedia has this on US involvement with the Taliban:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> United States

Foreign powers, including the United States, briefly supported the Taliban, hoping it would restore order in the war-ravaged country. For example, it made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995, and expelled thousands of girls from schools.[173] These hopes faded as the Taliban began killing unarmed civilians, targeting ethnic groups (primarily Hazaras), and restricting the rights of women.[109] In late 1997, American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began to distance the U.S. from the Taliban. The next year, the American-based oil company Unocal withdrew from negotiations on pipeline construction from Central Asia.[174]</div></div>

and

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Allegations of connection to CIA There have been many claims that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. In the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms and money, and the ISI helped gather radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviet invaders.[184] Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. "By 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war."[185] FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who was fired from the CIA for disclosing sensitive information, claims that the U.S. was on intimate terms with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, using them to further U.S. goals in Central Asia.[186] Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher was quoted as saying, "The Taliban was a construct of the CIA and was armed by the CIA... The Clinton administration, along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, created the Taliban."[187]

Former minister of German Federal Ministry of Defence Andreas von Bülow said that “With decisive support of the U.S. intelligence agencies, at least 30,000 Muslim fighters were trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a bunch of good-for-nothings and fanatics who were, and still are today, ready for anything. And one of them is Osama bin Laden. I wrote years ago: "It was out of this brood, that the Taliban grew up in Afghanistan, who had been brought up in the Koran schools financed by American and Saudi funds, the Taliban who are now terrorizing the country and destroying it"[188]</div></div>

Both von Bulow and Dana Rohrabacker base their stated claims on access to highly classified material slightly above your and my security clearances. (Links to footnotes in the original Wiki article 'Taliban.')

Just as when the Contras needed funding after the Boland Amendment cut off any official US funds, we asked and got various parties to fund them (including Gulf sheikdoms and, amazingly enough, millions from the Calli or Medellin cartels), the fact that probably bin Laden mainly got HIS funding from Saudi Arabia, but at our request, doesn't mean we weren't involved.

Stretch
02-01-2011, 01:45 AM
Snap, thanks for the info and great post. Marvelous restraint on LWW's taunts i might add. Hey you even got a spelling lesson, we all do, it's his "grasping at straws" debate style. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif St.

Qtec
02-01-2011, 02:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The term is also used more generally than in relation to the Afghan conflict, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>referring to any Muslim whose armed struggle can be said to be in the interest of the faith.
</span>
Read more: Mujahideen - Word history, Afghan Mujahideen, Mujahideen in Bosnia, Pakistan/Kashmiri mujahideen, Other Uses, Sources and References http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/15503/Mujahideen.html#ixzz1CgzHNbXs
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bin Laden was never supported by the USA </div></div>

Denial. Its common knowledge that the USA was arming anyone who would fight the Russians.


What a bad move that turned out to be.

Q

LWW
02-01-2011, 04:29 AM
Why didn't you provide a link?<span style='font-size: 14pt'>
</span>
Could it be because this might be exposed:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">U.S. government officials and a number of other parties maintain that the U.S. supported only the indigenous Afghan mujahideen. They deny that the CIA or other American officials had contact with the Afghan Arabs (foreign mujahideen) or Bin Laden, let alone armed, trained, coached or indoctrinated them.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Scholars and reporters have called the idea the CIA backed Afghan Arabs (foreign mujahideen) "nonsense",[17] "sheer fantasy",[18] and "simply a folk myth."[19]</span>

They argue that:
with a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land

that with several hundred million dollars a year in funding from non-American, Muslim sources, Arab Afghans themselves would have no need for American funds

that Americans could not train mujahideen because Pakistani officials would not allow more than a handful of them to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan;[20]

that the Afghan Arabs were militant Islamists, reflexively hostile to Westerners, and prone to threaten or attack Westerners even though they knew the Westerners were helping the mujahideen.

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri says much the same thing in his book Knights Under the Prophet's Banner.[21]

Bin Laden himself has said "the collapse of the Soviet Union ... goes to God and the mujahideen in Afghanistan ... the US had no mentionable role," but "collapse made the US more haughty and arrogant." [22]

According to CNN journalist Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997,
The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.[19]

Bergen quotes Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987:

It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan.[23]

Marc Sageman, a Foreign Service Officer who was based in Islamabad from 1987–1989, and worked closely with Afghanistan's Mujahideen, argues that no American money went to the foreign volunteers.

Sageman also says:[24]
Contemporaneous accounts of the war do not even mention [the Afghan Arabs]. Many were not serious about the war. ... Very few were involved in actual fighting. For most of the war, they were scattered among the Afghan groups associated with the four Afghan fundamentalist parties.

No U.S. official ever came in contact with the foreign volunteers. They simply traveled in different circles and never crossed U.S. radar screens. They had their own sources of money and their own contacts with the Pakistanis, official Saudis, and other Muslim supporters, and they made their own deals with the various Afghan resistance leaders."[25]

Vincent Cannistraro, who led the Reagan administration's Afghan Working Group from 1985 to 1987, puts it,
The CIA was very reluctant to be involved at all. They thought it would end up with them being blamed, like in Guatemala." So the Agency tried to avoid direct involvement in the war, ... the skittish CIA, Cannistraro estimates, had less than ten operatives acting as America's eyes and ears in the region. Milton Bearden, the Agency's chief field operative in the war effort, has insisted that "[T]he CIA had nothing to do with" bin Laden. Cannistraro says that when he coordinated Afghan policy from Washington, he never once heard bin Laden's name.[26]

Fox News reporter Richard Miniter wrote that in interviewes with the two men who "oversaw the disbursement for all American funds to the anti-Soviet resistance, Bill Peikney - CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986 - and Milt Bearden - CIA station chief from 1986 to 1989 - he found,

Both flatly denied that any CIA funds ever went to bin Laden. They felt so strongly about this point that they agreed to go on the record, an unusual move by normally reticent intelligence officers. Mr. Peikney added in an e-mail to me: “I don’t even recall UBL [bin Laden] coming across my screen when I was there.[27]

Other reasons advanced for a lack of a CIA-Afghan Arab connection of "pivotal importance," (or even any connection at all), was that the Afghan Arabs themselves were not important in the war but were a "curious sideshow to the real fighting."[28]
One estimate of the number of combatants in the war is that 250,000 Afghans fought 125,000 Soviet troops, but only 2000 Arab Afghans fought "at any one time".[29]

According to Milton Bearden the CIA did not recruit Arabs because there were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight. The Arab Afghan were not only superfluous but "disruptive," angering local Afghan with their more-Muslim-than-thou attitude, according to Peter Jouvenal.[30] Veteran Afghan cameraman Peter Jouvenal quotes an Afghan mujahideen as saying "whenever we had a problem with one of them [foreign mujahideen], we just shot them. They thought they were kings."
Many who traveled in Afghanistan — Olivier Roy,[31] Peter Jouvenal.[32] — reported of the Arab Afghans' visceral hostility to Westerners in Afghanistan to aid Afghans or report on their plight. BBC reporter John Simpson tells the story of running into Osama bin Laden in 1989, and with neither knowing who the other was, bin Laden attempting to bribe Simpson's Afghan driver $500 — a large sum in a poor country — to kill the infidel Simpson. When the driver declined, Bin Laden retired to his "camp bed" and wept "in frustration." [33] </div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA-Osama_bin_Laden_controversy)

LWW &lt;---Loves slaying leftist mytholgy with their own sources.

Stretch
02-01-2011, 05:09 AM
What was the myth? St.

LWW
02-01-2011, 05:18 AM
Please find a friend fluent in English to explain it to you.

LWW

Qtec
02-01-2011, 06:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to CNN journalist Peter Bergen </div></div>

ie, ONE journalist says........

That's LWW,s proof.

Q

LWW
02-01-2011, 06:26 AM
Actually it was:

- The U.S. govt
- The CIA
- Bin Laden
- The Pakistani govt
- Ayman al-Zawahiri
- Peter Bergen
- Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf head of Pakistan's version of the CIA
- Marc Sageman, US Foreign Service Officer
- Vincent Cannistraro, head of the Reagan administration's Afghan Working Group
- Fox News reporter Richard Miniter
- Bill Peikney, CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986
- Milt Bearden - CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1986 to 1989
- BBC reporter John Simpson

and as a counter to that, you abd sofanapper offer ... a small group of howling moonbats who were never in the loop and quote each other.

But, you always have been truth averse.

LWW

LWW
02-01-2011, 06:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> An analysis of our recent past--the second half of the twentieth century--shows there has been no conflict, but rather an alliance, between Christian and Muslim civilizations. One indicator of this alliance is that the vast majority of radical Islamic fundamentalist organizations, now considered terrorists, were once actively supported by the leaders of Christian civilizations. While the mainstream Western media have failed to inform their readers about this, the empirical evidence for such support exists. In his book Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, Robert Dreyfus documents extensively how the U.S. and U.K. governments supported the majority of Muslim fundamentalist associations (again, now defined as terrorists), and in fact played a key role in establishing and developing these groups. Dreyfus shows, for example, how both governments actively supported the establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s. This extremely violent group was started in Egypt and, with the support of Saudi Arabia, expanded throughout the Arab world. In the 1980s, the Muslim Brotherhood helped to establish the Movement of Islamic Resistance, known as Hamas, the radical Muslim Palestinian group that today governs the Palestinian people. Again in the 1950s, the U.S. and U.K. governments also supported the Mullahs (fundamentalist Muslim clerics) in Iran, led by Khomeini, who later became the leaders of that country. And the U.S. and U.K. governments also actively supported (with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) the Taliban in Afghanistan.</div></div>

These are dirty secrets that have been swept under the rug, so it's no wonder you haven't heard of them. In exile in Paris, Khomeini received a CIA check for years. Those horrible jihadi coloring books in Afghanistan, educating the youth in madrassas to fundamentalist hatred? Created, printed, funded and supplied by the US, to the tune of millions of dollars.

We made common cause with these radicals because they were anti-Communist. It was Brzrzenski's doctrine of the 'arc of crisis' that saw the soft underbelly of the '-stan' soviet republics with their large Muslim populations as ripe for exploitation to destabilize the Soviet empire.
</div></div>

All completely irrelevant as to the US backing Bin Laden.

I agree we supported the mujahideen/Northern Alliance. I love how you use the truth I presented and claim it means something else.

I also agree that Jimmuh Cahtuh ... in a very similar fashion to what's going down now ... helped depose a long time US ally and install Khomeini.

What on Earth was your point in posting that ... other than knowing Snoopy would nod his head in unison?

LWW

LWW
02-01-2011, 06:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just as Eisenhower (for a time) supported Castro, and we also (briefly) supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, just as Noreiga, Saddam, Qadaffy, and yes, bin Laden, etc., were also our boys.

Sorry that the actual history offends your delicate sensibilities.
</div></div>

You have no clue of the actual history.

Bin Laden was never supported by the USA and I defy you to present actual evidence to that fact.

Now, for your edification:

1 - UBL and his posse came in to Afghanistan. The Afghans (Who are not Arabs mind you.) despised them and referred to them as "THE ARABS" when speaking of them.

2 - The US backed what was commonly called "THE MUJAHIDEEN."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>3 - After the Soviets left, "THE ARABS" became what is commonly referred to as "THE TALIBAN" and UBL became the de facto leader by taking Mullah Omar ... a war hero who is completely out of his mind due to seizures resulting from shrapnel in his brain ... as a sock puppet king.</span>

4 - "THE MUJAHIDEEN" became what was known as "THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE" and they fought an ongoing war against UBL's posse.

LWW </div></div>

The Taliban are ethnic Pashtuns, the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan. They are neither foreigners nor Arabs, even though foreigners and Arabs indeed fought with them. Since the Afghans overall disliked the Arabs, it is hard to square the Taliban being Arab with their initial acceptance across Afghanistan overall (and their control of over 70% of the country). The people who weren't wild about them were other ethnicities, not Pashtuns.

Wikipedia has this on US involvement with the Taliban:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> United States

Foreign powers, including the United States, briefly supported the Taliban, hoping it would restore order in the war-ravaged country. For example, it made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995, and expelled thousands of girls from schools.[173] These hopes faded as the Taliban began killing unarmed civilians, targeting ethnic groups (primarily Hazaras), and restricting the rights of women.[109] In late 1997, American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began to distance the U.S. from the Taliban. The next year, the American-based oil company Unocal withdrew from negotiations on pipeline construction from Central Asia.[174]</div></div>

and

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Allegations of connection to CIA There have been many claims that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. In the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms and money, and the ISI helped gather radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviet invaders.[184] <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. <span style="color: #3333FF">Do you evenb read what you post? Your data supports what I said. Thanks, but I really didn't need the help.</span></span> "By 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war."[185] FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who was fired from the CIA for disclosing sensitive information, claims that the U.S. was on intimate terms with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, using them to further U.S. goals in Central Asia.[186] Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher was quoted as saying, "The Taliban was a construct of the CIA and was armed by the CIA... The Clinton administration, along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, created the Taliban." <span style="color: #3333FF">OOOOH! Somebody never in the loop!</span>[187]

Former minister of German Federal Ministry of Defence Andreas von Bülow <span style="color: #3333FF">OOOOH! Somebody never in the loop!</span> said that “With decisive support of the U.S. intelligence agencies, at least 30,000 Muslim fighters were trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a bunch of good-for-nothings and fanatics who were, and still are today, ready for anything. And one of them is Osama bin Laden. I wrote years ago: "It was out of this brood, that the Taliban grew up in Afghanistan, who had been brought up in the Koran schools financed by American and Saudi funds, the Taliban who are now terrorizing the country and destroying it"[188]</div></div>

Both von Bulow and Dana Rohrabacker base their stated claims on access to highly classified material slightly above your and my security clearances. <span style="color: #3333FF">OOOOH!Based on evidence nobody cane see!</span>(Links to footnotes in the original Wiki article 'Taliban.')

Just as when the Contras needed funding after the Boland Amendment cut off any official US funds, we asked and got various parties to fund them<span style="color: #3333FF">OOOOH! Completely irrelevant to the topic!</span> (including Gulf sheikdoms and, amazingly enough, millions from the Calli or Medellin cartels), <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the fact that probably bin Laden mainly got HIS funding from Saudi Arabia</span> <span style="color: #3333FF">OOOOH! So your proof that your claim is the truth is the statement that it wasn't true at all? Do you even read this stuff?</span>, but at our request, doesn't mean we weren't involved. </div></div>

"THE ARABS" were wealthy nut jobs fighting with family money ... meanwhile, the Saudi government you claim was actually behind him was trying him in absentia.

WOW! Just WOW!

LWW

LWW
02-02-2011, 04:47 AM
I guess none of them can?

LWW

Sev
02-02-2011, 06:44 AM
The rest of you should have your notebooks out on how to have a civil debate/discussion.

Sofla is doing a find job in his discussions.

LWW
02-02-2011, 07:07 AM
He is doing far better than the rest, and I confess that my frustration in getting anything resembling polite discussion from the cabal sometimes bleeds into my replies to him.

My humblest apologies to all.

LWW

Sev
02-02-2011, 07:34 AM
I am quite enjoying the back and forth with him. He presents himself well. Makes acknowledgments to information presented while at the same time presenting an alternative perspective.
Well done in deed.

He could almost be one of my many alternate personalities which I apparently post under on this site.

Soflasnapper
02-02-2011, 12:11 PM
Thanks. I'm a non-black man who enjoys a fine single-malt Scotch myself!

Soflasnapper
02-02-2011, 01:03 PM
"THE ARABS" were wealthy nut jobs fighting with family money ... meanwhile, the Saudi government you claim was actually behind him was trying him in absentia.

WOW! Just WOW!


I agree that reality is stunning and unbelievable.

After 'al Qaeda' blew up Khobar Towers, who got the contract to rebuild? The bin Laden family construction company.

That family is very closely tied into the ruling Saudi royal family, and it is generally agreed that some of the bin Laden family remain among the funders of Osama bin Laden.

Other funders of bin Laden and 'al Qaeda' include members of the Saudi royal family itself. This funding cannot be done without our knowing it, our tacit allowance of it, and in my view, our active encouragement of it (as in the case of the Contras, which is not an irrelevant case history at all).

Where was George Herbert Walker Bush the morning of 9/11? At a meeting of the Carlyle (sp?) Group, including members of the bin Laden family.

Ultimately, some of these things proved a little too embarrassing, so you had three 'al Qaeda funding' Saudi princes die within a week's time:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Saudi prince found dead in desert
Agence France-Presse
Riyadh, July 30

Saudi Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al Kabir has been found dead in his country's searing desert, the official SPA news agency said early on Tuesday, adding that the prince apparently died of thirst.

The report said the 25-year-old prince had been travelling in Rimah province, south of the town of al Ammaniya.

It gave no further details. Prince Fahd was the third member of the extensive Saudi royal family to die in a week.

Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, 41, died in a road accident on July 23 as he was driving from the coastal resort of Jeddah to the capital Riyadh for the funeral of his cousin Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, 43, who had died the day before of a heart attack. </div></div>

Who else funded 'al Qaeda'? Actually, the only funder of record other than the Saudi royal family and the bin Laden family was one Mahmood Ahmed, who had ordered $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta. Who was this guy? Gen. Mahmood Ahmed was then the head of Pakistan's ISI (their CIA equivalent, which our CIA uses as a subcontractor in that region). Where was he on 9/11? Having lunch in DC with Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham and ranking minority member of that committee, Porter Goss (later to become DCIA).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> GEORGE WILL, CONSPIRACY THEORIST???

Okay, maybe not, but I was surprised to stumble across this today from one of his Washington Post columns:

"It is not fantasy that there have been many reports that the then-head of Pakistani intelligence was responsible for $100,000 being wired to Mohamed Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw2003100...

It's interesting how the story of that connection hangs in the air, but no reporter ever gets to the bottom of it. For instance, I also stumbled across this today in the Wall Street Journal, of all places:

"It is a fact that Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, then head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta before 9/11 through an intermediary. (This was reported in the Journal on Oct. 10, 2001.)"

http://www.melvillehousebooks.com/pearlclips/opinion.ht...

It's like an uncomfortable truth that many people are aware of, but no one really wants to figure out. Amazing, isn't it, that this vital fact would be mentioned in book review asides in newspapers like the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, and not blared from their front pages? Even the original Wall Street Journal story referred to above above was given the strange title "Our Friends, the Pakistanis" and buried in the back pages.</div></div>

LWW
02-02-2011, 03:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where was George Herbert Walker Bush the morning of 9/11? At a meeting of the Carlyle (sp?) Group, including members of the bin Laden family. </div></div>

I always suspected you to be a follower of Mr Moorecheeseburgers.

Although technically true, the clear implication is a meeting between GHWB and one or more Bin Ladens.

The truth is far different, and I would say you already knew that but I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt.

The reality is that it was a stockholder meeting where hundreds ... perhaps 1,000 or more ... of shareholders were in attendance of an open meeting.

Besides that ... it has no relevance to the lunacy that the USA funded UBL.

LWW

LWW
02-02-2011, 03:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"It is a fact that Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, then head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta before 9/11 through an intermediary. (This was reported in the Journal on Oct. 10, 2001.)"</div></div>

Actually ... it isn't.

Mahmud Ahmed was in fact in meetings in the US ... and the topic was UBL ... on 9/11/01.

He also cooperated with the US in pinning it on UBL and AQ.

As to the money ... was transferred by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh and not by Mahmud Ahmed as you claim. The money was sent from the United Arab Emirates and not from Pakistan. Unused funds were returned to the UAE and Saeed also.

It has been supposed that Ahmed ordered the transfer, but this was never confirmed. Ahmed did resign his position, probably under pressure from Musharaf.

And, again, even if your statements were 100% accurate ... which is a huge leap in both faith and logic ... it supports in no way your claim that the USA backed UBL.

OH DEAR! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36091-2002May17?language=printer)

OH GEEZ! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Umar_Sheikh)

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-07-2011, 09:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"It is a fact that Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, then head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta before 9/11 through an intermediary. (This was reported in the Journal on Oct. 10, 2001.)"</div></div>

Actually ... it isn't.

Mahmud Ahmed was in fact in meetings in the US ... and the topic was UBL ... on 9/11/01.

He also cooperated with the US in pinning it on UBL and AQ.

As to the money ... was transferred by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh and not by Mahmud Ahmed as you claim. The money was sent from the United Arab Emirates and not from Pakistan. Unused funds were returned to the UAE and Saeed also.

It has been supposed that Ahmed ordered the transfer, but this was never confirmed. Ahmed did resign his position, probably under pressure from Musharaf.

And, again, even if your statements were 100% accurate ... which is a huge leap in both faith and logic ... it supports in no way your claim that the USA backed UBL.

OH DEAR! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36091-2002May17?language=printer)

OH GEEZ! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Umar_Sheikh)

LWW </div></div>

From your second link:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> More than a month after the money transfer was discovered, the head of ISI, General Mahmud Ahmed resigned from his position. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>It was reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was investigating the possibility that Gen. Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send the $100,000 to Atta [13]</span>

The Wall Street Journal was one of the only Western news organizations to follow up on the story, citing the Times of India: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"US authorities sought General Mahmud Ahmed's removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 was wired to WTC hijacker Mohamed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of General Mahmud."[16] Another Indian newspaper, the Daily Excelsior, quoting FBI sources, reported that the "FBI’s examination of the hard disk of the cellphone company Omar Sheikh had subscribed to led to the discovery of the "link" between him and the deposed chief of the Pakistani ISI, Mahmud Ahmed. And as the FBI investigators delved deep, reports surfaced with regard to the transfer of $100,000 to Mohamed Atta, one of the terrorists who flew a hijacked Boeing commercial airliner into the World Trade Center. General Mahmud Ahmed, the FBI investigators found, fully knew about the transfer of money to Atta."[17]</span>

U.S. investigators later said that this was a confusion with Mustafa al-Hawsawi, also known as Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad, who is currently held in Guantanamo Bay.[18] <span style='font-size: 14pt'>[CYA denial of previously 'confirmed' facts]</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Pittsburgh Tribune notes that there "are many in Musharraf's government who believe that Saeed Sheikh's power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA."[19]</div></div> </span>

Soflasnapper
02-07-2011, 10:00 PM
Washington's Secret History w/Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/feb/05/washingtons-secret-history-muslim-brotherhood/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Journalists and pundits are already weighing in with advice on the strengths and dangers of this 83-year-old Islamist movement, whose various national branches are the most potent opposition force in virtually all of these countries. Some wonder how the Brotherhood will treat Israel, or if it really has renounced violence. Most—including the Obama administration —seem to think that it is a movement the West can do business with, even if the White House denies formal contacts.

If this discussion evokes a sense of déjà vu, this is because over the past sixty years we have had it many times before, with almost identical outcomes. Since the 1950s, the United States has secretly struck up alliances with the Brotherhood or its offshoots on issues as diverse as fighting communism and calming tensions among European Muslims. And if we look to history, we can see a familiar pattern: each time, US leaders have decided that the Brotherhood could be useful and tried to bend it to America’s goals, and each time, maybe not surprisingly, the only party that clearly has benefited has been the Brotherhood.

How can Americans be unaware of this history? Credit a mixture of wishful thinking and a national obsession with secrecy, which has shrouded the US government’s extensive dealings with the Brotherhood.

Consider President Eisenhower. In 1953, the year before the Brotherhood was outlawed by Nasser, a covert US propaganda program headed by the US Information Agency brought over three dozen Islamic scholars and civic leaders mostly from Muslim countries for what officially was an academic conference at Princeton University. </div></div>