Tired of the free world?

[The-Gus]

Maybe I'm going prematurely old, but do you get the feeling that the U.S and it's allies are not really interested inn protecting their populous, and more about screwing over all the little people? And before you start with the Islamic fundamentalist, go to America's Secret War or Stratfor.com and actually read what they say about Al Qaeda. More to the point your good buddies, the CIA, funded the bastards.

Stick that in your National Pride and smoke it!

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 5/23/07 08:06 PM, The-Gus wrote: Maybe I'm going prematurely old, but do you get the feeling that the U.S and it's allies are not really interested inn protecting their populous, and more about screwing over all the little people? And before you start with the Islamic fundamentalist, go to America's Secret War or Stratfor.com and actually read what they say about Al Qaeda. More to the point your good buddies, the CIA, funded the bastards.

Stick that in your National Pride and smoke it!

oh please thats a bunch of bullshit made by left wing liberals. plus there are no fucking conspiracies. clean your brain.

[K-RadPie]

This is supposed to affect my national pride how?

[Tony-DarkGrave]

its not because its just a bunch of bullsit conspiracy theories.

[cellardoor6]

At 5/23/07 08:06 PM, The-Gus wrote: Maybe I'm going prematurely old, but do you get the feeling that the U.S and it's allies are not really interested inn protecting their populous, and more about screwing over all the little people?

No, that's stupid.

"Screwing over" the little people would have no purpose in and of itself. And besides, all those "little people" that the US and our allies "screw over" end up becoming more prosperous by our intervention.

And before you start with the Islamic fundamentalist, go to America's Secret War or Stratfor.com and actually read what they say about Al Qaeda.

Um you linked to a website designed to promote a book, and you linked to a website which at glance said nothing about Al Qaeda and requires a membership.... you suck at giving sources.

More to the point your good buddies, the CIA, funded the bastards.

That was the Mujahideen, Al Qaeda didn't even exist back then . They had never targeted civilians or attacked any other country when we started funding and supplying them. They were also fighting against the Soviet Union, which was by far the bigger evil. So we supplied them and funded them, and because we did, they kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

They were more of a legitimate resistance group than a terrorist group at the time that we assisted them. Just because some of the components of the Mujahideen later formed into Al Qaeda years after we stopped providing assistance to them doesn't mean we funded Al Qaeda as you are falsely suggesting.

Stick that in your National Pride and smoke it!

Yeah, because linking to two websites that don't prove a fucking thing, while you repeat nonsense that has repeatedly been disproved is totally going to damage someones national pride.

So go do what other morons like you love doing and stick some weed in your pipe and smoke it. Then go eat a hotpocket and concern yourself with things that don't boggle your mind instead of, you know, something called reality that you seem to love ignoring.

[SyntheticTacos]

I don't have to go to those websites to tell you, "um....yeah". Of course the U.S. funded "mujahideen", the "mujahideen" were fighting Hussein/the Soviets. Most of us know that there are plenty of corrupt fellows higher up, and guess what? That includes the U.K. The way I look at it is, "Yeah, the Western world has a lot of political corruption, but it's still not as bad as the rest of the world."

Just because something sucks doesn't mean the other things suck less.

I mean, you could be choosing between food that's slightly too old, and food that's made out of feces. One is bad but that doesn't change the fact that the other is worse.

And please don't let Dante bother you, I think this is just where he lets off steam. As much as you might consider somebody like him to be a stereotypical American most of us are much closer to the center. Bush's approval ratings are below 40% after all.

It's true that the U.S. funded a lot of shady characters to fight the Soviets, but I think most of it was to prevent Soviet expansion... let's face it, we're probably a lot better off with a number of terrorists attacking us then in the middle of a war with an overgrown Soviet Union. Not to say a lot of the funding wasn't the result of rampant political corruption, 'o course. But most nations have rampant political corruption these days, and the states under Sharia law are definitely no exception.

[The-Gus]

At 5/23/07 10:05 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 5/23/07 08:06 PM, The-Gus wrote: Maybe I'm going prematurely old, but do you get the feeling that the U.S and it's allies are not really interested inn protecting their populous, and more about screwing over all the little people?

No, that's stupid.

Can you at least try to sound less like a 5-year-old when you comment?

"Screwing over" the little people would have no purpose in and of itself. And besides, all those "little people" that the US and our allies "screw over" end up becoming more prosperous by our intervention.

And before you start with the Islamic fundamentalist, go to America's Secret War or Stratfor.com and actually read what they say about Al Qaeda.

Um you linked to a website designed to promote a book, and you linked to a website which at glance said nothing about Al Qaeda and requires a membership.... you suck at giving sources.

Yes, It means go buy the fucking book! the other website is there so you can be updated on the content of potentially the next book.

More to the point your good buddies, the CIA, funded the bastards.

That was the Mujahideen, Al Qaeda didn't even exist back then . They had never targeted civilians or attacked any other country when we started funding and supplying them. They were also fighting against the Soviet Union, which was by far the bigger evil. So we supplied them and funded them, and because we did, they kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

Ok, now I can legitimately tell you, that you are talking shit. Al Qaeda was invented by the CIA, this is not a conspiracy! This is financial fact! The CIA poured Billions of U.S Taxpayers money into Afghanistan to try and push the Russians out, but covertly so as not to start WW3 with the Russians, if you actually red the book, you would know this. The common feature of the Afghan tribes was not political persuasion, or ideology but Islam, the CIA used this influence to remind them of a concept that had been effectively dead for centuries: the second Jihad. Jihad is split in two: the war on temptation (The one with more emphasis on it in the Q'uoran) and the war against the infidels. The latter had not been invoked since the time of Mohamed himself (P.B.U.M [Hey I'm covering the bases just in case]), with this in place the U.S through their friendly Saudi friends funded the Mujahideen and set up Al Qaeda so as to create a modular force which could survive if one or more bases were destroyed or raided. K?!

They were more of a legitimate resistance group than a terrorist group at the time that we assisted them. Just because some of the components of the Mujahideen later formed into Al Qaeda years after we stopped providing assistance to them doesn't mean we funded Al Qaeda as you are falsely suggesting.

Stick that in your National Pride and smoke it!

Yeah, because linking to two websites that don't prove a fucking thing, while you repeat nonsense that has repeatedly been disproved is totally going to damage someones national pride.

So go do what other morons like you love doing and stick some weed in your pipe and smoke it. Then go eat a hotpocket and concern yourself with things that don't boggle your mind instead of, you know, something called reality that you seem to love ignoring.

Hey, Fuck you. Read my article on how hash got made Illegal in the US, and that is sourced to the fucking hilt. Grow up and stop believing all that bullshit that US protects you, it protects it's backers not it's people.

[jhonyrestrepo]

Everything is possible in this world. Not saying wether this is true or not.

[J1993]

thats true but it doesnt mean that the cia intended for binladen and his men to go anti western.
Also an earlier comment saying post occupied countries are better off you just have to measure it against lives lost.
Example peasants in britain were richer after half of the population died of the black death

[TheMason]

At 5/24/07 06:20 AM, The-Gus wrote:

More to the point your good buddies, the CIA, funded the bastards.

That was the Mujahideen, Al Qaeda didn't even exist back then . They had never targeted civilians or attacked any other country when we started funding and supplying them. They were also fighting against the Soviet Union, which was by far the bigger evil. So we supplied them and funded them, and because we did, they kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

Ok, now I can legitimately tell you, that you are talking shit. Al Qaeda was invented by the CIA, this is not a conspiracy! This is financial fact! The CIA poured Billions of U.S Taxpayers money into Afghanistan to try and push the Russians out, but covertly so as not to start WW3 with the Russians, if you actually red the book, you would know this. The common feature of the Afghan tribes was not political persuasion, or ideology but Islam, the CIA used this influence to remind them of a concept that had been effectively dead for centuries: the second Jihad. Jihad is split in two: the war on temptation (The one with more emphasis on it in the Q'uoran) and the war against the infidels. The latter had not been invoked since the time of Mohamed himself (P.B.U.M [Hey I'm covering the bases just in case]), with this in place the U.S through their friendly Saudi friends funded the Mujahideen and set up Al Qaeda so as to create a modular force which could survive if one or more bases were destroyed or raided. K?!

Do you not see where you are wrong? The Mujahideen and al-Qaida are NOT the same thing. Furthermore, the money the CIA provided to the fighters did not go directly to the fighter but filtered through intermediaries. For example:

1) Money was provided to Israel and Egypt to purchase AK-47s that Israel had captured in battle and that were getting old in the Egyptian arsenal. However, these were very battleworn so eventually the US arranged for China to supply the Afghans with new AK-47s and other small arms.
2) The money that went to the Afghan fighters went through Pakistan's ISI (their CIA). It is now believed that the ISI funneled that money to secret training camps to train insurgents for their dispute with India over Kashmire. These insurgents were virulently fundamental Islamists who were also very anti-American (which is why Pakistan kept their existence secret from a CIA which did not carefully follow where their money was going). These insurgents would become the Taliban; who in the 1990s would seize power in Afghanistan and later shelter bin-Laden. The CIA never directly funded anybody...
3) The foreign fighters who answered the call to Jihad were not that effective and only did it to get "street cred" with their rich peer groups in countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Kuwait. However, all they really did was go to summer camp where they fired blindly into the night and funneled money to the various tribes making up the Mujahideen.
4) UBL was just a money man and it is no longer believed he was in anyway involved in any major battle. His job was to act as recruiter/tour guide for rich Muslims who wanted to show they had balls. Any money UBL raised was through private channels and neither the CIA nor anyone else in the West knew anything about him until after the "first" Gulf War when he funded/supported the first WTC bombing.

I do not think what you're saying is a conspiracy theory...however I think you've confused the facts and need to study the history involved just a little more.

Source

[Demosthenez]

At 5/24/07 06:20 AM, The-Gus wrote: The common feature of the Afghan tribes was not political persuasion, or ideology but Islam, the CIA used this influence to remind them of a concept that had been effectively dead for centuries: the second Jihad. Jihad is split in two: the war on temptation (The one with more emphasis on it in the Q'uoran) and the war against the infidels.

The people who would later form Al Qaeda were not Afghanis so why would the political persuasion of the Afghan tribes matter when discussing Al Qaeda? Anyways, Islam is an ideology and I think the resistance fighters didnt need any provocation, they handled that by themselves quite well. You are giving the CIA to much credit :P

The latter had not been invoked since the time of Mohamed himself (P.B.U.M [Hey I'm covering the bases just in case]), with this in place the U.S through their friendly Saudi friends funded the Mujahideen and set up Al Qaeda so as to create a modular force which could survive if one or more bases were destroyed or raided. K?!

Jihad had been invoked numerous times since the time of Muhammed. Strike that, tons of times. This is not a concept that died out, it has been in use for century upon century.

And the Mujahideen didnt have bases, that kind of defeats the purpose of an insurgency when you have areas right out in the open that can be bombed by the people with the airplanes and helicopters (Soviets). And no, Al Qaeda was formed in the late 80's when the Soviets were already done with Afghanistan and Al Qaeda really didnt take any formation and wasnt on anyones radar until the mid to late 90's.

[TheMason]

At 5/29/07 12:53 PM, Demosthenez wrote: The people who would later form Al Qaeda were not Afghanis so why would the political persuasion of the Afghan tribes matter when discussing Al Qaeda? Anyways, Islam is an ideology and I think the resistance fighters didnt need any provocation, they handled that by themselves quite well. You are giving the CIA to much credit :P

People have a deep seated need to believe in conspiracies and that nothing happens without the approval or knowledge of an all-knowing and all-powerful force...often a very malicious power. In much of the world this malicious power is the CIA. However, what is blamed upon the CIA is often far from the truth.

Take the thread starter. He probably read that the CIA provided funds for the Mujahideen and made a very strong and very superficial link between the two and in his mind turned the Mujahideen into al-Qaida. That he uses the terms (Mujahideen and al-Qaida) interchangably shows that his knowledge of the geopolitical realities of this region is as superficial as the average American/European.

I wonder if he actually read the book and if he did if he didn't read just a little much between the lines. I'm curious as to if this book might actually be worth reading...

Jihad had been invoked numerous times since the time of Muhammed. Strike that, tons of times. This is not a concept that died out, it has been in use for century upon century.

Much like the Christian equivalent: Crusade. Before you jump me for making this comparison keep in mind that Crusades have historically been bloody, but they have also been peaceful attempts at conversion (a la Billy Graham). Just remember that "Crusade" conjures up the same images in the Muslim/Middle Eastern mind that Jihad conjures up in the Christian/Western mind...

And like Jihad Crusade is a concept that has not died out either...and like Jihad it has evolved and has several meanings...

And the Mujahideen didnt have bases, that kind of defeats the purpose of an insurgency when you have areas right out in the open that can be bombed by the people with the airplanes and helicopters (Soviets). And no, Al Qaeda was formed in the late 80's when the Soviets were already done with Afghanistan and Al Qaeda really didnt take any formation and wasnt on anyones radar until the mid to late 90's.

The Mujahideen did have training camps in Pakistan, but just like the US couldn't bomb Viet Cong camps in Cambodia the USSR couldn't bomb Mujahideen camps in Pakistan. Furthermore, the Mujahideen did have an impressive number of bases. The utilizied extensive cave networks much like the VC used underground bases against the US in the 1960s and 1970s. These bases are largely impervious to air assault.

[Demosthenez]

At 5/29/07 02:40 PM, TheMason wrote: The Mujahideen did have training camps in Pakistan, but just like the US couldn't bomb Viet Cong camps in Cambodia the USSR couldn't bomb Mujahideen camps in Pakistan. Furthermore, the Mujahideen did have an impressive number of bases. The utilizied extensive cave networks much like the VC used underground bases against the US in the 1960s and 1970s. These bases are largely impervious to air assault.

Fair enough. I connotated bases quite differently than you, I was thinking the out in the open/clear fields of fire, artillery and supplies kind of base. Didnt really think of their cave networks. And definately didnt think of Pakistan, nor was I really aware that they had much infrastructure there. Hey, learn new shit everyday, huh?

[TheMason]

At 5/29/07 03:17 PM, Demosthenez wrote: Fair enough. I connotated bases quite differently than you, I was thinking the out in the open/clear fields of fire, artillery and supplies kind of base. Didnt really think of their cave networks. And definately didnt think of Pakistan, nor was I really aware that they had much infrastructure there. Hey, learn new shit everyday, huh?

You know if you think about it the way the VC and Mujahideen/Taliban/al-Qaida built these "bases" (some are simple tunnels...others are pretty eleborate) it is amazingly clever and you gotta give them credit and respect for ingenuity!

Afghanistan for the Soviets was very much like Vietnam for the Americans...and that was by design...