freethefly 6 #51 October 28, 2006 QuoteIt looks like you could benefit from a little reading up, too. Our people in Afghanistan had nothing to do with Bin Laden. We left Afghanistan when the Soviets pulled out, before we eased relations with the Soviets. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/miller.html From the John Miller interview with Bin Laden; The Somalia operation, in some ways, made bin Laden. During the Afghan war, the CIA had been very aware of him (although the agency now insists it never "controlled" him), but in Somalia, bin Laden had taken a swing at the biggest kid in the school yard and given him a black eye. The next fight, a few weeks later, would begin with a sucker punch. Also, you should read Charlie Wilson's War; By the summer of 1980, the Afghan freedom fighters were beaten back by the onslaught of an invading Soviet army. Waves of refugees began pouring out of the country in neighboring Pakistan as entire villages were leveled in combat. A secret presidential finding by President Jimmy Carter ordered that a trickle of military support would be supplied to the Afghan fighters by the CIA. This small operation was to increase in scope to eventually become the largest covert involvement in the history of the United States. A small number of people controlled the destiny of the mujahideen. Foremost, there was Charlie Wilson, a Texas congressman. As he investigated the fighting first-hand, he began to feel that the United States should aid the freedom fighters to a much larger extent than what was being provided by the CIA. Of special concern to Wilson was the inability of the Afghan fighters to shoot down the Russian Hind, a heavily armored helicopter. His goal became to equip the resistance army with modern weapons including assault rifles, mortars, and anti-aircraft guns."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #52 October 29, 2006 Hard to debate manic emotionalizm......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #53 October 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd I wonder WHY they want to kill us? I believe because of mentality like yours Thank-you, I'll accept that as a Personal Attack. They attacked us long before we did any waterboarding. Perhaps getting your facts straight before responding would be beneficial in the future. Or not if that suits you. - I don't see it as anywhere near a PA. Rather, it is a reasonable (moderate, even) interpretation of the views you repeatedly express. If you are going to be it, own it! Perhaps, but at least they are MY views and not plagerized from another source like some people we know. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #54 October 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd I wonder WHY they want to kill us? I believe because of mentality like yours Thank-you, I'll accept that as a Personal Attack. They attacked us long before we did any waterboarding. Perhaps getting your facts straight before responding would be beneficial in the future. Or not if that suits you. - I don't see it as anywhere near a PA. Rather, it is a reasonable (moderate, even) interpretation of the views you repeatedly express. If you are going to be it, own it! Perhaps, but at least they are MY views and not plagerized from another source like some people we know. - ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #55 October 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd I wonder WHY they want to kill us? I believe because of mentality like yours Thank-you, I'll accept that as a Personal Attack. They attacked us long before we did any waterboarding. Perhaps getting your facts straight before responding would be beneficial in the future. Or not if that suits you. - I don't see it as anywhere near a PA. Rather, it is a reasonable (moderate, even) interpretation of the views you repeatedly express. If you are going to be it, own it! Perhaps, but at least they are MY views and not plagerized from another source like some people we know. - Gee...Where did you get that idea from? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #56 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt looks like you could benefit from a little reading up, too. Our people in Afghanistan had nothing to do with Bin Laden. We left Afghanistan when the Soviets pulled out, before we eased relations with the Soviets. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/miller.html From the John Miller interview with Bin Laden; The Somalia operation, in some ways, made bin Laden. During the Afghan war, the CIA had been very aware of him (although the agency now insists it never "controlled" him), but in Somalia, bin Laden had taken a swing at the biggest kid in the school yard and given him a black eye. The next fight, a few weeks later, would begin with a sucker punch. Also, you should read Charlie Wilson's War; By the summer of 1980, the Afghan freedom fighters were beaten back by the onslaught of an invading Soviet army. Waves of refugees began pouring out of the country in neighboring Pakistan as entire villages were leveled in combat. A secret presidential finding by President Jimmy Carter ordered that a trickle of military support would be supplied to the Afghan fighters by the CIA. This small operation was to increase in scope to eventually become the largest covert involvement in the history of the United States. A small number of people controlled the destiny of the mujahideen. Foremost, there was Charlie Wilson, a Texas congressman. As he investigated the fighting first-hand, he began to feel that the United States should aid the freedom fighters to a much larger extent than what was being provided by the CIA. Of special concern to Wilson was the inability of the Afghan fighters to shoot down the Russian Hind, a heavily armored helicopter. His goal became to equip the resistance army with modern weapons including assault rifles, mortars, and anti-aircraft guns. This post does nothing to support your previous (bogus) claims. It's about comprehending what you do read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #57 October 30, 2006 QuoteThis post does nothing to support your previous (bogus) claims. My claim (and the claim of others) is that the U.S. government befriended, used and then abandon their allies in Afghanistan. There is a substantial amount of information that points in that direction (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ do some research). U.S. support for the Mujahadeen began before the Afghan-Russain war. This was admitted by Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in a January 1998 interview. One of the few policies of the Carter administration to be carried on in the Reagan admin. was the support of the Mujahadeen. Reagan viewed the Islamic warlords as "heroes" and hailed them to be "freedom fighters". Reagan then went on to say, who were "an example to all the world of the invincibility of the ideals we in this country hold most dear, the ideals of freedom and independence.". Even the Dems were onboard this so called freedom train as Senator Bill Bradley said that the warlords were "the sole legitimate representatives of the Afghan people" who were "developing a modern concept of an independent, neutral Islamic state." With the support of the Pakistans Inter - Service Intelligence Agency the U.S. channeled several billions of dollars worth of weapons into Afghanistan to arm the Mujahadeen. While funding and weapons poured in, the CIA operated a pipeline of fighters from countries throughout the M.E. such as Saudi Arabia from where Osama Bin Laden came from. After the 1988 accord between the U.S and Russia the Mujahadeen were on their own for upto another year before Russia completely withdrew in Febuary of 89. The true reason the U.S. gave such overwhelming support to the Mujahadeen had nothing to do with their freedom but, everything to do with pulling Russia, the U.S.'s rival in world domination, into a war that it could not win and this was admitted by Brzezinski. The true purpose of orchastrating a war between the Afghani's and Russia was solely to undermine the Russians. The U.S. cared little about the aftermath as it was well known what sort of state that Afghanistan would fall to after the U.S. pulled its support. As Brzezinski said, "What was more important in the world? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?". If anyone is to blame for the ill feelings the "terrorist" have towards the U.S. government it is the U.S. government itself as they are solely responsible for bringing the Taliban to power. Some would have you to believe that these people just woke up one day and decided that they hate the U.S. because we are not of their religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. They dispise our government for what was done to them after the truth was revealed of why the U.S. pulled them into a war with Russia. You want to know the truth, do the research and do not depend on political ads for your information. Use the link that I supplied to the National Archives. I rest my case."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #58 October 30, 2006 QuoteIf anyone is to blame for the ill feelings the "terrorist" have towards the U.S. government it is the U.S. government itself as they are solely responsible for bringing the Taliban to power. Let's see if I got this right. AQ was pissed off at the US for bringing the Taliban to power? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #59 October 30, 2006 >AQ was pissed off at the US for bringing the Taliban to power? That's as silly as claiming that Hussein and Bin Laden had anything to do with each other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #60 October 30, 2006 Quote>AQ was pissed off at the US for bringing the Taliban to power? That's as silly as claiming that Hussein and Bin Laden had anything to do with each other. I disagree. I think it's sillier. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #61 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteThis post does nothing to support your previous (bogus) claims. My claim (and the claim of others) is that the U.S. government befriended, used and then abandon their allies in Afghanistan. There is a substantial amount of information that points in that direction (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ do some research). U.S. support for the Mujahadeen began before the Afghan-Russain war. This was admitted by Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in a January 1998 interview. One of the few policies of the Carter administration to be carried on in the Reagan admin. was the support of the Mujahadeen. Reagan viewed the Islamic warlords as "heroes" and hailed them to be "freedom fighters". Reagan then went on to say, who were "an example to all the world of the invincibility of the ideals we in this country hold most dear, the ideals of freedom and independence.". Even the Dems were onboard this so called freedom train as Senator Bill Bradley said that the warlords were "the sole legitimate representatives of the Afghan people" who were "developing a modern concept of an independent, neutral Islamic state." With the support of the Pakistans Inter - Service Intelligence Agency the U.S. channeled several billions of dollars worth of weapons into Afghanistan to arm the Mujahadeen. While funding and weapons poured in, the CIA operated a pipeline of fighters from countries throughout the M.E. such as Saudi Arabia from where Osama Bin Laden came from. After the 1988 accord between the U.S and Russia the Mujahadeen were on their own for upto another year before Russia completely withdrew in Febuary of 89. The true reason the U.S. gave such overwhelming support to the Mujahadeen had nothing to do with their freedom but, everything to do with pulling Russia, the U.S.'s rival in world domination, into a war that it could not win and this was admitted by Brzezinski. The true purpose of orchastrating a war between the Afghani's and Russia was solely to undermine the Russians. The U.S. cared little about the aftermath as it was well known what sort of state that Afghanistan would fall to after the U.S. pulled its support. As Brzezinski said, "What was more important in the world? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?". If anyone is to blame for the ill feelings the "terrorist" have towards the U.S. government it is the U.S. government itself as they are solely responsible for bringing the Taliban to power. Some would have you to believe that these people just woke up one day and decided that they hate the U.S. because we are not of their religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. They dispise our government for what was done to them after the truth was revealed of why the U.S. pulled them into a war with Russia. You want to know the truth, do the research and do not depend on political ads for your information. Use the link that I supplied to the National Archives. I rest my case. I agree with practically all of what you claim in the above post. However it does nothing to support the points I questioned on page two. Quote You seriously need to read the history of the US governments involvement with Bin Laden and others like him. At one time they were herald as "Freedom Fighters" and given training and weapons during the Afghan/Russian war. After the US and Russia kissed and made up the freedom fighters were abandon and immediatly labled as terrorist as Russia continued to wage war on them. QuoteFor every insurgent/terrorist killed there is 100 more inline to take his place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #62 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteIf anyone is to blame for the ill feelings the "terrorist" have towards the U.S. government it is the U.S. government itself as they are solely responsible for bringing the Taliban to power. Let's see if I got this right. AQ was pissed off at the US for bringing the Taliban to power? Again, do some research. Also, read Charlie Wilson's war or wait for the movie to be released. I think it comes out sometime next year. Tom Hanks is playing the part of Wilson. But, to answer your question, no, they are not pissed because they came to power, they are pissed at the betrayal. You'd be pissed off too if someone befriended you, supported you and then once they got what they were seeking, abandoned you and left your country in shambles (not that Afghanistan is Bin Ladens country). To be fair, Russia is also responsible for what is happening today. Two world powers butting heads and not giving a damn about the aftermath. There is far more to all of this than what is being said. Go to the archives and read every possible paper that you can find. They are, after all, documents written by the government itself. The archives are non-partisan. Maybe, you'll see the light."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #63 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf anyone is to blame for the ill feelings the "terrorist" have towards the U.S. government it is the U.S. government itself as they are solely responsible for bringing the Taliban to power. Let's see if I got this right. AQ was pissed off at the US for bringing the Taliban to power? Again, do some research. Also, read Charlie Wilson's war or wait for the movie to be released. I think it comes out sometime next year. Tom Hanks is playing the part of Wilson. But, to answer your question, no, they are not pissed because they came to power, they are pissed at the betrayal. You'd be pissed off too if someone befriended you, supported you and then once they got what they were seeking, abandoned you and left your country in shambles (not that Afghanistan is Bin Ladens country). To be fair, Russia is also responsible for what is happening today. Two world powers butting heads and not giving a damn about the aftermath. There is far more to all of this than what is being said. Go to the archives and read every possible paper that you can find. They are, after all, documents written by the government itself. The archives are non-partisan. Maybe, you'll see the light. I'm really trying to follow you here. What did AQ and the Taliban expect the US to do to keep supporting them? Were we supposed to set up some kind of welfare state funded by the US taxpayer? Wasn't it enough that we assisted them in driving the Russians out of their country? What more were we expected to do? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #64 October 30, 2006 I agree with practically all of what you claim in the above post. However it does nothing to support the points I questioned on page two. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You seriously need to read the history of the US governments involvement with Bin Laden and others like him. At one time they were herald as "Freedom Fighters" and given training and weapons during the Afghan/Russian war. After the US and Russia kissed and made up the freedom fighters were abandon and immediatly labled as terrorist as Russia continued to wage war on them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For every insurgent/terrorist killed there is 100 more inline to take his place. I'll answer the last point first. "For every insurgent/terrorist killed there is 100 more inline to take his place". This is only an assumption that should be easily assumed as there is an seemingly endless supply of fighters that are in Iraq and an unknown number worldwide. For every fighter that dies it is assumed that his sons and others will pick up the gun and continue where his father left off. 100 more in line was, by no means, used to be an exact number, just an assumption. First point; I was not saying the U.S. singled at Bin Laden but, I was saying that the U.S. indirectly created him and others like him. There are, however, documents that show that Bin Laden was somewhat favored for his abilities to lead. The CIA denies this, of course. The second point is in relation to the aftermath. After the 1988 signing the U.S. stopped all relations with the people whom they created and up and left. Russia, however, stilled had a few rocks to kick before they pulled out altogether in Feb. 1989. Had the U.S. worked in an agreement to further the cause of democracy in Afghanistan the Mujahadeen may still be a favorite son of the U.S. and not an enemy. This lesson is why the U.S. cannot leave Iraq completely but help finish what it started and even more reason that the U.S. should strive to bring everyone involved to the table. A.Q. has asked to sit and talk and that should be noted as a willingness to possibly end this war. Untill the U.S. does so, A.Q. will continue to wage war on us. Regardless of what they done the U.S. is no better for what it done so many years ago. Wars end when parties involved sit and find common grounds on which they can agree on. It will be no different with A.Q.. It will be no different with the warring factions in Iraq. First round of talks may accomplish little but, it has to start somewhere and shooting at each other is accomplishing nothing."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #65 October 30, 2006 QuoteA.Q. has asked to sit and talk and that should be noted as a willingness to possibly end this war. They have? Can you point me to the source you got this from? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #66 October 30, 2006 QuoteI'm really trying to follow you here. What did AQ and the Taliban expect the US to do to keep supporting them? Were we supposed to set up some kind of welfare state funded by the US taxpayer? Wasn't it enough that we assisted them in driving the Russians out of their country? What more were we expected to do? Following this reasoning, we should just pull out from Iraq completely. Hell, what do the Iraqi people expect? That we should continue helping them? Hell, the U.S. only started it. The lesson that should be noted is the mistake made in Afghanistan so many years ago. If we were to pull out completely from Iraq today we will be creating another pre 9-11 Afghanistan. The freedom fighters were incapable of setting up a government that would work, the same in Iraq. Without guidlines, Iraq will fail. The level of government in Iraq is similar to pre 9-11 Afghanistan in many ways as it is heavily influenced by one faction and nowhere near a democracy. The elections were a joke and were heavily influenced. They had done little to improve themselves and rely heavily upon favor. They need to use the greatest tool that has came out of democracy - the bargaining table - not the gun."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #67 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteread Charlie Wilson's war or wait for the movie to be released. I think it comes out sometime next year. Tom Hanks is playing the part of Wilson. This is completely off topic. Does anyone else think the highlighted sentence is funny? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #68 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteI'm really trying to follow you here. What did AQ and the Taliban expect the US to do to keep supporting them? Were we supposed to set up some kind of welfare state funded by the US taxpayer? Wasn't it enough that we assisted them in driving the Russians out of their country? What more were we expected to do? Following this reasoning, we should just pull out from Iraq completely. Hell, what do the Iraqi people expect? That we should continue helping them? Hell, the U.S. only started it. The lesson that should be noted is the mistake made in Afghanistan so many years ago. If we were to pull out completely from Iraq today we will be creating another pre 9-11 Afghanistan. The freedom fighters were incapable of setting up a government that would work, the same in Iraq. Without guidlines, Iraq will fail. The level of government in Iraq is similar to pre 9-11 Afghanistan in many ways as it is heavily influenced by one faction and nowhere near a democracy. The elections were a joke and were heavily influenced. They had done little to improve themselves and rely heavily upon favor. They need to use the greatest tool that has came out of democracy - the bargaining table - not the gun. I'm still not following you here. The Taliban wasn't interested in setting up a pro-Western Style Democracy. They were interested in setting up an Islamic Theocracy, which they did, sucessfully. I don't see the parallels you are trying to draw between Iraq and Afghanistan. Our goal in Afghanistan was to assist the Taliban to drive out the Russians. Until 9/11 there were no US Combat troops on the ground in Afghanistan so where did we suddenly develop this obligation to give the same level of assistance in setting up a government there as we did in Iraq? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freethefly 6 #69 October 30, 2006 From the CNN archives; 'To the American mother ... to the British wife ...' The bespectacled al-Zawahiri is wearing a white turban with white traditional Muslim garments in the video, which is set against a black backdrop. The video also bears the logo of As-Sahab, al Qaeda's media production house. Indicating a relatively swift turnaround time for the tape, it makes reference to an audiotape from bin Laden that surfaced January 19. In that tape, bin Laden offered the United States a truce, which was flatly rejected, and said it is "only a matter of time" before America is attacked again. (Full story) "The lion of Islam, Sheik Osama bin Laden, offered you a decent exit from your dilemma, but your leaders, who are keen to accumulate wealth, insist on throwing you in battles and killing your souls in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and, God willing, on your own land," al-Zawahiri said. "To the American mother I say, if the defense ministry called you to tell you your son is coming back home in a coffin, remember Bush," al-Zawahiri said. "To the British wife I say, if you got a call telling you your husband is coming back home with his body charred, remember [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair." Osama bin Laden's top deputy was last seen in a video broadcast by Al-Jazeera on January 6. (Full story) On January 20, al-Zawahiri recited poetry to jihadists on a 17-minute audiotape that was posted on the Internet. (Full story) Al-Zawahiri -- an Egyptian exile who has served as bin Laden's personal doctor -- has a $25 million reward posted for his head in connection with the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. CNN's David Ensor contributed to this report. Whether they are sincere or not it needs to start somewhere and any willingness on the part of the U.S. may work in our favor to sway others to our side. It only takes a few on the other side to see some hope to ending this and there is without doubt some on that side who do not fully agree with their leaders. I am not saying that we should bow down and give in, I am saying that some sort of diplomatic line needs to be established to bring a start to the end of all of this bullshit. Untill then, we can expect more of the same."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #70 October 30, 2006 My guess is it wasn't taken very seriously as was the offer he made to Europe in 2004. Considering he demanded the immediate and complete removal of US and EU Troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, it's pretty understandable why. So on one hand, you are suggestiong we consider his offer and on the other you are saying we pissed off the terrorists by leaving Afghanistan too soon. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #71 October 30, 2006 It really is a travesty that this administration could not follow thru and get rid of these religious zealots.. instead of runing off half cocked into Iraq.. the PROPER thing to have done was to STAY THE COURSE.. in Afghanistan and complete the task. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freethefly 6 #72 October 30, 2006 QuoteUntil 9/11 there were no US Combat troops on the ground in Afghanistan I never said that there were troops in Afghanistan prior to 9-11 QuoteOur goal in Afghanistan was to assist the Taliban to drive out the Russians. The U.S. never backed the Taliban during the Afghan - Russian war as the Taliban did not exist during that period. The Taliban emerged from religious schools known as "Madrassas" that were located along the Paki - Afghani border during 1993. These schools were supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. These schools also provided military training that was funded through the ISI, the Saudis and the CIA. The CIA connection was revealed by the then Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. After the Afghan - Russain war the U.S. mainly washed their hands of it except for the CIA support it gave to the Taliban. When the Taliban went on the warpath across Afghanistan the U.S. had no objection. The cash flow came to a trickle and stopped altogether. There was, however, a large amount in the hands of the Paki's. The U.S. cared nothing of what the Taliban was doing. In fact at Mazar-e-Sharif the Taliban killed 6000 people in two days. Clintons policy was to ignore this as it did not interfere with pipeline deals that were being set up by UNOCAL. The U.S. hoped that the Taliban would dominate over the regional warlords (which they did) and then construct a pipeline from Turkmenistan, across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A CIA report confirmed that with the help of the Taliban that this was possible. Even though Assit. Secretary of State Raphel made statements concerning the Taliban and the exportation of terrorism the secretary also said "It is not in the interests of Afghanistan or any of us here that the Taliban be isolated". Another diplomat stated "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did" since there will be "pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that." The U.S. and UNOCAL was often critiziced for their lack of being harsh on the Taliban. Only after the attacks on the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya did the U.S. react with cruise missiles at training camps and at an pharmetcutical plant. These actions ended the pipeline deal. Clinton was not the only one soft on the Taliban. May, 2001 Bush was all aglow with nothing but good things to say about how the Taliban was a partner in the war on drugs. Never mind that the Talibans effort consisted of cutting of the heads of the opium farmers and their entire families. As long as the flow of heroin came to a near stop that was a good war as far as Bush was concern. In fact, Bush awarded the Taliban with $43 million dollars and promised more if they carried out U.S. policies in Afghanistan. It was only because of Bin Laden did the deal go sour. The parallel is that you reap what you sow and in this case the Taliban was a product of the U.S. as the U.S. allowed them to do as they pleased with little to no restraint as long as they did some favors. This seems to be the case in Iraq. The U.S. failed to foster a government that could self rule in bettering the country instead the U.S. laid the ground work for what was to be the bloodiest period in Afghanistans history, all in the name of oil and the drug war. What the U.S. got for all of this was extremely pissed off people who came to see how they were being used. The Taliban left unchecked became a monster and it is again rising to power as the U.S. has all but abandon the new government to create a new monster in Iraq. If Iraq is abandon we will see the rise of a bigger, stronger Taliban that will not be easily defeated."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freethefly 6 #73 October 30, 2006 QuoteMy guess is it wasn't taken very seriously as was the offer he made to Europe in 2004. Considering Bin Ladens history, I assume that that is true. QuoteConsidering he demanded the immediate and complete removal of US and EU Troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, it's pretty understandable why Considering what became of Afghanistan (not saying we had troops but the policy towards Afghanistan) it is unfathomable to consider pulling out completely and to have no say in building a workable government in Iraq. It would had served us better to not had never gone into Iraq but, hindsight is 20/20 and the only option is to correct the problem with as little bloodshed as possible and the way to slow it down is using the table to find common ground. QuoteSo on one hand, you are suggestiong we consider his offer and on the other you are saying we pissed off the terrorists by leaving Afghanistan too soon. I am suggesting that any offer to go to the table be viewed with caution but, to go none the less. As with Afghanistan prior to 9-11 the U.S. did not leave all together but helped to bring the Taliban to power without any concern as to how they conducted themselves. The U.S. failed in supporting a group that had the well being of the people in mind and through covert operations supported the group they felt could better support the U.S. drug war and quest for oil. If not for Bin Laden the Taliban would still be a favorite son. The Taliban messed up by not turning Bin Laden over to the U.S. when requested to do so. So, in retrospect, Bin Laden is a creation bourne from the U.S.'s misguided policy. The misguided policy of Carter and the continuation of that misguided policy by Reagan, Clinton and Bush is why we are where we are today."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Gravitymaster 0 #68 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteI'm really trying to follow you here. What did AQ and the Taliban expect the US to do to keep supporting them? Were we supposed to set up some kind of welfare state funded by the US taxpayer? Wasn't it enough that we assisted them in driving the Russians out of their country? What more were we expected to do? Following this reasoning, we should just pull out from Iraq completely. Hell, what do the Iraqi people expect? That we should continue helping them? Hell, the U.S. only started it. The lesson that should be noted is the mistake made in Afghanistan so many years ago. If we were to pull out completely from Iraq today we will be creating another pre 9-11 Afghanistan. The freedom fighters were incapable of setting up a government that would work, the same in Iraq. Without guidlines, Iraq will fail. The level of government in Iraq is similar to pre 9-11 Afghanistan in many ways as it is heavily influenced by one faction and nowhere near a democracy. The elections were a joke and were heavily influenced. They had done little to improve themselves and rely heavily upon favor. They need to use the greatest tool that has came out of democracy - the bargaining table - not the gun. I'm still not following you here. The Taliban wasn't interested in setting up a pro-Western Style Democracy. They were interested in setting up an Islamic Theocracy, which they did, sucessfully. I don't see the parallels you are trying to draw between Iraq and Afghanistan. Our goal in Afghanistan was to assist the Taliban to drive out the Russians. Until 9/11 there were no US Combat troops on the ground in Afghanistan so where did we suddenly develop this obligation to give the same level of assistance in setting up a government there as we did in Iraq? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #69 October 30, 2006 From the CNN archives; 'To the American mother ... to the British wife ...' The bespectacled al-Zawahiri is wearing a white turban with white traditional Muslim garments in the video, which is set against a black backdrop. The video also bears the logo of As-Sahab, al Qaeda's media production house. Indicating a relatively swift turnaround time for the tape, it makes reference to an audiotape from bin Laden that surfaced January 19. In that tape, bin Laden offered the United States a truce, which was flatly rejected, and said it is "only a matter of time" before America is attacked again. (Full story) "The lion of Islam, Sheik Osama bin Laden, offered you a decent exit from your dilemma, but your leaders, who are keen to accumulate wealth, insist on throwing you in battles and killing your souls in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and, God willing, on your own land," al-Zawahiri said. "To the American mother I say, if the defense ministry called you to tell you your son is coming back home in a coffin, remember Bush," al-Zawahiri said. "To the British wife I say, if you got a call telling you your husband is coming back home with his body charred, remember [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair." Osama bin Laden's top deputy was last seen in a video broadcast by Al-Jazeera on January 6. (Full story) On January 20, al-Zawahiri recited poetry to jihadists on a 17-minute audiotape that was posted on the Internet. (Full story) Al-Zawahiri -- an Egyptian exile who has served as bin Laden's personal doctor -- has a $25 million reward posted for his head in connection with the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. CNN's David Ensor contributed to this report. Whether they are sincere or not it needs to start somewhere and any willingness on the part of the U.S. may work in our favor to sway others to our side. It only takes a few on the other side to see some hope to ending this and there is without doubt some on that side who do not fully agree with their leaders. I am not saying that we should bow down and give in, I am saying that some sort of diplomatic line needs to be established to bring a start to the end of all of this bullshit. Untill then, we can expect more of the same."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #70 October 30, 2006 My guess is it wasn't taken very seriously as was the offer he made to Europe in 2004. Considering he demanded the immediate and complete removal of US and EU Troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, it's pretty understandable why. So on one hand, you are suggestiong we consider his offer and on the other you are saying we pissed off the terrorists by leaving Afghanistan too soon. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #71 October 30, 2006 It really is a travesty that this administration could not follow thru and get rid of these religious zealots.. instead of runing off half cocked into Iraq.. the PROPER thing to have done was to STAY THE COURSE.. in Afghanistan and complete the task. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #72 October 30, 2006 QuoteUntil 9/11 there were no US Combat troops on the ground in Afghanistan I never said that there were troops in Afghanistan prior to 9-11 QuoteOur goal in Afghanistan was to assist the Taliban to drive out the Russians. The U.S. never backed the Taliban during the Afghan - Russian war as the Taliban did not exist during that period. The Taliban emerged from religious schools known as "Madrassas" that were located along the Paki - Afghani border during 1993. These schools were supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. These schools also provided military training that was funded through the ISI, the Saudis and the CIA. The CIA connection was revealed by the then Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. After the Afghan - Russain war the U.S. mainly washed their hands of it except for the CIA support it gave to the Taliban. When the Taliban went on the warpath across Afghanistan the U.S. had no objection. The cash flow came to a trickle and stopped altogether. There was, however, a large amount in the hands of the Paki's. The U.S. cared nothing of what the Taliban was doing. In fact at Mazar-e-Sharif the Taliban killed 6000 people in two days. Clintons policy was to ignore this as it did not interfere with pipeline deals that were being set up by UNOCAL. The U.S. hoped that the Taliban would dominate over the regional warlords (which they did) and then construct a pipeline from Turkmenistan, across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A CIA report confirmed that with the help of the Taliban that this was possible. Even though Assit. Secretary of State Raphel made statements concerning the Taliban and the exportation of terrorism the secretary also said "It is not in the interests of Afghanistan or any of us here that the Taliban be isolated". Another diplomat stated "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did" since there will be "pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that." The U.S. and UNOCAL was often critiziced for their lack of being harsh on the Taliban. Only after the attacks on the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya did the U.S. react with cruise missiles at training camps and at an pharmetcutical plant. These actions ended the pipeline deal. Clinton was not the only one soft on the Taliban. May, 2001 Bush was all aglow with nothing but good things to say about how the Taliban was a partner in the war on drugs. Never mind that the Talibans effort consisted of cutting of the heads of the opium farmers and their entire families. As long as the flow of heroin came to a near stop that was a good war as far as Bush was concern. In fact, Bush awarded the Taliban with $43 million dollars and promised more if they carried out U.S. policies in Afghanistan. It was only because of Bin Laden did the deal go sour. The parallel is that you reap what you sow and in this case the Taliban was a product of the U.S. as the U.S. allowed them to do as they pleased with little to no restraint as long as they did some favors. This seems to be the case in Iraq. The U.S. failed to foster a government that could self rule in bettering the country instead the U.S. laid the ground work for what was to be the bloodiest period in Afghanistans history, all in the name of oil and the drug war. What the U.S. got for all of this was extremely pissed off people who came to see how they were being used. The Taliban left unchecked became a monster and it is again rising to power as the U.S. has all but abandon the new government to create a new monster in Iraq. If Iraq is abandon we will see the rise of a bigger, stronger Taliban that will not be easily defeated."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #73 October 30, 2006 QuoteMy guess is it wasn't taken very seriously as was the offer he made to Europe in 2004. Considering Bin Ladens history, I assume that that is true. QuoteConsidering he demanded the immediate and complete removal of US and EU Troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, it's pretty understandable why Considering what became of Afghanistan (not saying we had troops but the policy towards Afghanistan) it is unfathomable to consider pulling out completely and to have no say in building a workable government in Iraq. It would had served us better to not had never gone into Iraq but, hindsight is 20/20 and the only option is to correct the problem with as little bloodshed as possible and the way to slow it down is using the table to find common ground. QuoteSo on one hand, you are suggestiong we consider his offer and on the other you are saying we pissed off the terrorists by leaving Afghanistan too soon. I am suggesting that any offer to go to the table be viewed with caution but, to go none the less. As with Afghanistan prior to 9-11 the U.S. did not leave all together but helped to bring the Taliban to power without any concern as to how they conducted themselves. The U.S. failed in supporting a group that had the well being of the people in mind and through covert operations supported the group they felt could better support the U.S. drug war and quest for oil. If not for Bin Laden the Taliban would still be a favorite son. The Taliban messed up by not turning Bin Laden over to the U.S. when requested to do so. So, in retrospect, Bin Laden is a creation bourne from the U.S.'s misguided policy. The misguided policy of Carter and the continuation of that misguided policy by Reagan, Clinton and Bush is why we are where we are today."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
