I was born there, I lived there. I know what I am talking about. Sure there are muslims, but not as in any other muslim nation. There are people that really believe, but that is only 5 % of the population.

___________________
Vernato

quote:

Originally posted by erdega http://www.google.ca/search?sourcei...stan+mujahadeen

the CIA gave the Mujahadeen tactics on how to fight Russian armor and formations,

satelite imagery detailing Russian formations and supply lines,

Stinger missles, which up until then the Mujahadeen were being slaughterded by Russian Hind-24 attack helo's. and in the end the Mujahadeen were slaughtering the Hind's with the Stingers,

the cash was being used through Pakistan and other countries to by small arms and supplies and to buy off tribes and other people.

none of that shit is secret.

thats it. what does it matter now? all it mattered then was to defeat the Russians. yet people like you NEVER fault Bin Laden's twisted ideology.

people like you are more or less caught up in the romance of the story and will never fault Bin Laden for anything. but you have no problem spreading in-credible crap that no one believes and can't be substantiated.

nowhere and nobody credible says the CIA ever met Bin Laden during the Afghan war.

Last edited by Q5echo on Jun-16-2007 at 21:14

quote:

Originally posted by erdega let's deal with facts such as dozens of medieval churches bombed and destroyed

what are you a cultural anthropologist now?

Kapedan is right. NATO saved a couple million from being slaughtered.

you obviously don't give a damn cause it doesn't fit your mold.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the CIA gave the Mujahadeen tactics on how to fight Russian armor and formations, satelite imagery detailing Russian formations and supply lines, Stinger missles, which up until then the Mujahadeen were being slaughterded by Russian Hind-24 attack helo's. and in the end the Mujahadeen were slaughtering the Hind's with the Stingers, the cash was being used through Pakistan and other countries to by small arms and supplies and to buy off tribes and other people. none of that shit is secret. thats it. what does it matter now? all it mattered then was to defeat the Russians. yet people like you NEVER fault Bin Laden's twisted ideology. people like you are more or less caught up in the romance of the story and will never fault Bin Laden for anything. but you have no problem spreading in-credible crap that no one believes and can't be substantiated. nowhere and nobody credible says the CIA ever met Bin Laden during the Afghan war.

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NW...eated_Osama.htm

excerpts

John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American “black Muslims” were taught “sabotage skills”.

Between 1978 and 1992, the US government poured at least US$6 billion (some estimates range as high as $20 billion) worth of arms, training and funds to prop up the mujaheddin factions. Other Western governments, as well as oil-rich Saudi Arabia, kicked in as much again. Wealthy Arab fanatics, like Osama bin Laden, provided millions more.

Washington's policy in Afghanistan was shaped by US President Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and was continued by his successors. His plan went far beyond simply forcing Soviet troops to withdraw; rather it aimed to foster an international movement to spread Islamic fanaticism into the Muslim Central Asian Soviet republics to destabilize the Soviet Union.

Washington's favoured mujaheddin faction was one of the most extreme, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The West's distaste for terrorism did not apply to this unsavory “freedom fighter”. Hekmatyar was notorious in the 1970's for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil.

After the mujaheddin took Kabul in 1992, Hekmatyar's forces rained US-supplied missiles and rockets on that city — killing at least 2000 civilians — until the new government agreed to give him the post of prime minister. Osama bin Laden was a close associate of Hekmatyar and his faction.

In 1995, the former director of the CIA's operation in Afghanistan was unrepentant about the explosion in the flow of drugs: “Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets... There was a fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan.”


According to Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, in 1986 CIA chief William Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI proposal to recruit from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. At least 100,000 Islamic militants flocked to Pakistan between 1982 and 1992 (some 60,000 attended fundamentalist schools in Pakistan without necessarily taking part in the fighting).


The November 1, 1998, British Independent reported that one of those charged with the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Ali Mohammed, had trained “bin Laden's operatives” in 1989.

These “operatives” were recruited at the al Kifah Refugee Centre in Brooklyn, New York, given paramilitary training in the New York area and then sent to Afghanistan with US assistance to join Hekmatyar's forces. Mohammed was a member of the US army's elite Green Berets.
The program, reported the Independent, was part of a Washington-approved plan called “ Operation Cyclone”.

The Independent also suggested that Shiekh Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian religious leader also jailed for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, was also part of Operation Cyclone. He entered the US in 1990 with the CIA's approval. A confidential CIA report concluded that the agency was “partly culpable” for the 1993 World Trade Center blast, the Independent reported.

Osama's military and business adventures in Afghanistan had the blessing of the bin Laden dynasty and the reactionary Saudi Arabian regime. His close working relationship with MAK also meant that the CIA was fully aware of his activities.

Milt Bearden, the CIA's station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, admitted to the January 24, 2000, New Yorker that while he never personally met bin Laden, “Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did ... [Guys like] bin Laden were bringing $20-$25 million a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra $200-$300 million a year. And this is what bin Laden did.”

Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who secretly fought for the mujaheddin told the August 13, 2000, British Observer, “The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism — car bombing and so on — so that they could strike at the Russians in major towns ... Many of them are now using their knowledge and expertise to wage war on everything they hate.”

Bin Laden has simply continued to do the job he was asked to do in Afghanistan during the 1980's — fund, feed and train mercenaries. All that has changed is his primary customer. Then it was the ISI and, behind the scenes, the CIA. Today, his services are utilized primarily by the reactionary Taliban regime.


In an August 28, 1998, report posted on MSNBC, Michael Moran quotes Senator Orrin Hatch, who was a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee which approved US dealings with the mujaheddin, as saying he would make “the same call again”, even knowing what bin Laden would become.

“It was worth it. Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union.”

Hatch today is one of the most gung-ho voices demanding military retaliation.


The only tactics that cia gave them was to not negotiate

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what are you a cultural anthropologist now? Kapedan is right. NATO saved a couple million from being slaughtered. you obviously don't give a damn cause it doesn't fit your mold.

because Nato is what ?
Purpotedly a defensive force that has become an aggressive one

and they have imperial designs on the region so it's imperative to destroy and kill while presenting themselves as fighting those things for their home media back home . This macabre scenario was repeated elsewhere including iraq

And why are you cherry picking my arguments, church burning is part it, AQ camps is part of it, saudi mosques, cia support

quote:

Originally posted by erdega because Nato is what ? Purpotedly a defensive force that has become an aggressive one and they have imperial designs on the region so it's imperative to destroy and kill while presenting themselves as fighting those things for their home media back home . This macabre scenario was repeated elsewhere including iraq And why are you cherry picking my arguments, church burning is part it, AQ camps is part of it, saudi mosques, cia support

What?
Is everything a conspiracy to create some great 'empire' thats just around the corner waiting to enslave mankind?

How the heck would YOU know if NATA has, 'imperial designs' or not?
Did they send you a memo that didn't quite make it out to anyone else?

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by erdega Purpotedly a defensive force that has become an aggressive one

in the absence of a Warsaw Pact and in the interests of detente', your're right. but ask yourself, who are they aggressive against?

quote:

and they have imperial designs on the region so it's imperative to destroy and kill while presenting themselves as fighting those things for their home media back home.

thats is your imagination at work.

quote:

This macabre scenario was repeated elsewhere including iraq

NATO has refused to go into Iraq. well within those member state's rights

quote:

And why are you cherry picking my arguments, church burning is part it, AQ camps is part of it, saudi mosques, cia support

and i would argue its a part of war, not some diabolical scheme of imperial hubris.

Military camps in Albania? You are nuts man! Its not worth it to have an argument with you because you do not understand anything about Albania.

___________________
Vernato

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What? Is everything a conspiracy to create some great 'empire' thats just around the corner waiting to enslave mankind? How the heck would YOU know if NATA has, 'imperial designs' or not? Did they send you a memo that didn't quite make it out to anyone else?

Of course they have imperial designs because they use force only and then build their military bases , they break every conceivable international law above all national sovereingty and employ complete double standards. How do they do that ?
First comes sanctions, then satanization of suppoesed leadeers by mainstream media and then when the time is "right" then comes military aggression and occupation.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo in the absence of a Warsaw Pact and in the interests of detente', your're right. but ask yourself, who are they aggressive against?

They are aggressive against anyone, real or imagined, that stands in their way of hegemonic imperial concquest or that they might gain political advantage on as in championing balkan muslims while aggressing and occupying the middle eastern mostly muslim and even secular states.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo thats is your imagination at work.

Don't tell me about imagination, that only works in Washington, London and Brussels to brainwash the masses and cook up grandiose military adventures. "Genocide" , "WMD" , "Democracy" , all cooked up in the imperial broth

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo NATO has refused to go into Iraq. well within those member state's rights

Yes because they are cowardly and afraid to confront a real enemy that is more brutal than them. Credit given to US at least, they are willing to kill and die for their policies unlike most euros . Of course US/UK have substituted some of their nato subordinates with far flung US clients from Australia , Japan , Korea to Georgia and Salvador and so on

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo and i would argue its a part of war, not some diabolical scheme of imperial hubris.

church burning, destruction of infrastructure and alliances with OBL works for you as "part of the war". Well you are not alone as that is prevalent in the current imperial culture, ends justify means, occupation is liberty, war is peace, terrorism is war and no lie is too big as long as the suckers swallow it and die for it.

Last edited by erdega on Jun-24-2007 at 00:41