who is responsible for the London attacks?

[Bernie Gunther]

Interesting that the report has Heritage (a key neo-con foundation) hosting the CFA as early as '81. That's extremely early in the US's support for the mj.

 

[fubert]

Interesting that the report has Heritage (a key neo-con foundation) hosting the CFA as early as '81. That's extremely early in the US's support for the mj.

and correct me if i'm wrong but didn't us support continue on after the soviets withdrew ?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

and correct me if i'm wrong but didn't us support continue on after the soviets withdrew ?

I'm not sure about the US doing so directly, but I'm pretty sure the ISI and the Saudi spooks, who are to some extent still satellites of the CIA, continued to support the sunni factions just as Iran continued to support the shiite ones, and for the same reasons, in order to maintain influence.

 

[mears]

please, entertain me. when exactly did us forces fight shoulder to shoulder with the mujahadin in any joint engagements of soviet forces ?

(you do know first blood part 3 was film by the way)

They were not out on the plains of Afghaniatan "shoulder to shoulder" but the CIA supplied the Mujahadeem with weapons.

And they attack us later?

What does that say about them?

 

[slaar]

That having had one dose of imperialism they weren't keen for a second?

 

[fubert]

so when you said :

We fought alongside them in Afghanistan

what did you mean ? other than "us forces engage soviet forces in afghanistan and only i heard about it"

They were not out on the plains of Afghaniatan "shoulder to shoulder" but the CIA supplied the Mujahadeem with weapons.

And they attack us later?

who's they ? you do know the people who hijacked the planes and carried out the 911 attacks were saudi, lebanese, eygptian and one was from the uae i think.

did they actually ask for help, personally i think the us was more interested in being seen as anti-soviet than pro-aghani.

 

[laptop]

who's they ?

They is all non-Americans.



We're all the same.




Apparently.

 

[fela fan]

They were not out on the plains of Afghaniatan "shoulder to shoulder" but the CIA supplied the Mujahadeem with weapons.

And they attack us later?

What does that say about them?

What does it say about YOU?

Nobody attacks their friends, so why did they attack you? What had you done to them? After all, it takes quite a bit for the young kid to stand up to the bully.

 

[Pickman's model]

Nobody attacks their friends

you might want to reconsider that, as there are any number of occurrences of friends topping each other.

or, there's the time the raf attacked the french navy in the second world war, killing thousands of french sailors.

or the numerous times the yankee imperialists have killed british troops in the last fourteen years.

 

[Serguei]

Its probably worth pointing out that the covert funding of the Afghan resistance was the bright idea of the neo-cons, in their reaganite incarnation.

And that did work for them, did it? Yes, one can be blown to pieces by a bomb on a train but at least until Iran gets its nuclear weapons (unfortunately it might arrive soon) nobody is afraind of been blown up by a nuclear bomb.

The mistake was that Afganistan was left to its own devices - there was no enough of American Imperialism at the time to save the West from terror camps.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I disagree. Once you've trained up a bunch of terrorists, they aren't going to stop being terrorists just because the US doesn't need 'em anymore. Given that these guys already had their explicit agenda back in the 80's it seems completely irresponsible to have encouraged them and turned them loose.

 

[laptop]

Once you've trained up a bunch of terrorists, they aren't going to stop being terrorists just because the US doesn't need 'em anymore.

In fact, if you train them up, fund and praise them lavishly, then publicly disown them leaving them at the mercies of Pakistan's ISI before cutting them off completely - they're going to be a bit less than chuffed with you, aren't they?

 

[Serguei]

I disagree. Once you've trained up a bunch of terrorists, they aren't going to stop being terrorists just because the US doesn't need 'em anymore. Given that these guys already had their explicit agenda back in the 80's it seems completely irresponsible to have encouraged them and turned them loose.

USSR supported guys in Palestine who are not much different in terms of their agenda. This was a normal thing then.
In 80-s both sides simply regarded fighting each other as more important then anything else. I don't think you can look back to 80-s bi-polar world and criticize the policies without taking into account a different situation then.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm not disagreeing that other nations have also funded terrorism. But the Reagan-era neo-cons and their overseas friends funded *these* terrorists, not some other, unrelated or hypothetical ones.

 

[oi2002]

Its probably worth pointing out that the covert funding of the Afghan resistance was the bright idea of the neo-cons...

I think it actually dates from Carter's last couple of months in office and yer man Zbig Brezinski, very much an old school Kissingerite realist.

His book 'The Choice' isn't bad by the way.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think it actually dates from Carter's last couple of months in office and yer man Zbig Brezinski, very much an old school Kissingerite realist.

His book 'The Choice' isn't bad by the way.

Sure, the idea was Brezinski's, he hasn't been shy about telling people that. The implementation was down to the neo-cons though. They ran the project to kind of prime the pump before the CIA got involved and as that quote from the Walsh report makes clear, they were diverting funds from selling stuff to Iran illicitly to help their little friends in Afghanistan in the mid-80's.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You could argue that the crucial effect that Afghanistan had on the jihadis was that they won. The Iranians won too in 1979, but this was a victory (as they saw it) for their sects and a vindication after disasters in Egypt etc.

This presumably did wonders for their morale and momentum and may well have been a factor in leading them to consider ambitious operations directed at the US.

 

[mears]

That having had one dose of imperialism they weren't keen for a second?

So Islamic Fundamentalists were right to take the fight to places like Washington, Bali and London?

Since, you know, they are fighting imperialism.

 

[mears]

They is all non-Americans.



We're all the same.




Apparently.

"They" are Islamic Terrorists that have been killing civilians in Turkey, Bali, Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Spain, Kenya, England, America...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Still can't tell cause from blame mears I see. Let us know when you can eh?

 

[mears]

Still can't tell cause from blame mears I see. Let us know when you can eh?

Wrong, many of these Islamic Terrorists are highly educated people. Many have university degrees or higher. They recruit and brainwash people into forming sucide pacts for their agenda.

These men are responsible for their actions. Not the west.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> These men are responsible for their actions. Not the west.

I wouldn't disagee with that. The way the actions of our politicians come into the debate is that they are charged with acting in our interests and I would claim that they have demonstrated utter incompetence in that respect, both by severely increasing the probability of something like this happening and by their ongoing ineptitude in making things worse. They have turned Iraq into an unwinnable disaster that will breed terrorism the way Russia's Chechen conflict breeds terrorism, for the forseeable future. For this I think they should be held accountable.

Such appalling incompetence is unacceptable.

 

[phildwyer]

the West has always sympathised with Israel and the vast numbers of influential Jewish population in both the UK and the US would always make the connection exist.

But consider the implications of what you're saying. The "Jewish" lobby insists on US/UK supporting Israel. That's fine, as long as supporting Israel is in "our" national interest. But what if supporting Israel is against our national interest, and is in fact a contributory factor to the bombing of our civilians? In that case, you're blaming the "Jewish" lobby for subverting the national interest of the "host" country. And that way disaster lies.

 

[slaar]

Wrong, many of these Islamic Terrorists are highly educated people. Many have university degrees or higher. They recruit and brainwash people into forming sucide pacts for their agenda.

These men are responsible for their actions. Not the west.

Blame for the immediate and direct act of indiscriminate acts of mass murder is clear. What, however, is the motive of these guys in your mind mears? That's the key point.

 

[mears]

I wouldn't disagee with that. The way the actions of our politicians come into the debate is that they are charged with acting in our interests and I would claim that they have demonstrated utter incompetence in that respect, both by severely increasing the probability of something like this happening and by their ongoing ineptitude in making things worse. They have turned Iraq into an unwinnable disaster that will breed terrorism the way Russia's Chechen conflict breeds terrorism, for the forseeable future. For this I think they should be held accountable. Such incompetence is unacceptable.

We are not being attacked by Iraqis or Afghanis in the west. Thats like saying Africans have the right to commit terrorists acts because their brothers in South Africa or Niger are facing western imperialism.

Many parts of the world face poverty and despair but only Muslims are killing civilians.

Its a Muslim problem, there is a civil war being played out in the Islamic religion, look at Iraq. One of modernity and one taking a literal translation of the Koran. Muslims will have to choose their path and fix their own problems.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Accepting all of that, which I don't, there still remains the question of their competence. Iraq is shaping up into a military disaster of legendary stature.

The present consequences of this are:

1) The Iraqi security forces are being killed in combat or assassinated at the rate of about half a dozen per day.

2) The US is blinded by its lack of effective Iraqi allies and stumbles around Iraq like Godzilla, wrecking stuff with its super-weapons to no useful purpose.

3) The sunni/nationalist insurgency is moving to the second stage of a classic guerilla war in a province which the US simply cannot afford to cut adrift.

4) Islamic crazies are coming from all over and rapidly undergoing natural selection in this clearly revolutionary situation. Mortaring pilgrims, kidnapping people and their sawing heads off (a technique pioneered by Chechens) etc.

5) The lessons of Chechnya make it evident that this will very probably mean terrorism is exported to any place the resulting angry, experienced terrorists can reach and think they might achieve political gains in.

That would be us in Europe and I claim that it's reasonable for us to hold the neo-cons directly responsible for the disaster they've created in Iraq.

 

[Streathamite]

Many parts of the world face poverty and despair but only Muslims are killing civilians.

are you trying to be funny?
I think if you look at the world for so much as 10 whole seconds you'll find it is NOT just muslims who are "killing civilians": US forces and Israeli forces do a pretty good job of that too!

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I'm fairly sure those soldier chaps in Uzbekistan managed to knock off a few civilians just the other day. Curiously enough the civiians were, in fact, Muslims, which may mean that according to Hoyle they don't actually count.

 

[mears]

Accepting all of that, which I don't, there still remains the question of their competence. Iraq is shaping up into a military disaster of legendary stature.

The present consequences of this are:

1) The Iraqi security forces are being killed in combat or assassinated at the rate of about half a dozen per day.

2) The US is blinded by its lack of effective Iraqi allies and stumbles around Iraq like Godzilla, wrecking stuff with its super-weapons to no useful purpose.

3) The sunni/nationalist insurgency is moving to the second stage of a classic guerilla war in a province which the US simply cannot afford to cut adrift.

4) Islamic crazies are coming from all over and rapidly undergoing natural selection in this clearly revolutionary situation. Mortaring pilgrims, kidnapping people and their sawing heads off (a technique pioneered by Chechens) etc.

5) The lessons of Chechnya make it evident that this will very probably mean terrorism is exported to any place the resulting angry, experienced terrorists can reach and think they might achieve political gains in.

That would be us in Europe and I claim that it's reasonable for us to hold the neo-cons directly responsible for the disaster they've created in Iraq.

If Muslims are looking for only bad aspects of in their relationship with the west and specifically the US, there is little one can do.

Most Muslims didn't agree with the US invasion of Iraq. But most of those same Muslims would probably admit its good Saddam is gone. In the first Gulf war all countries in the Middle East save Yemen supported the operation.

NATO took the lead in the former Yugoslavia when Muslims were being killed by Milosevich. Something Muslims across the world were happy about I'm sure. As we discussed, America supported Muslims in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded. Aid from the west flowed to many Muslim areas after the devastating tsunami last year.

So there have been areas of compromise and agreement between the west and the greater Muslim world.

Of course Islamic radicals only want Muslims to only focus on the negative.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> Of course Islamic radicals only want Muslims to only focus on the negative.

Have a look at this mears. http://www.comw.org/pda/0505rm10.html

On balance, Iraqis oppose the US presence in Iraq, and those who strongly oppose it greatly outnumber those who strongly support it.

US troops in Iraq are viewed broadly as an occupying force, not peacekeepers or liberators.

On balance, Iraqis do not trust US troops, think they have behaved badly, and -- one way or another -- hold them responsible for much of the violence in the nation.

There is significant popular support for attacks on US forces, and this support probably grew larger during the course of 2004, at least among Sunni Arabs.

A majority of Iraqis want coalition forces to leave within a year or less. Formation of a permanent government early in 2006 is the "tipping point" after which a very large majority of Iraqis may desire immediate withdrawal.

US forces have no legitimacy with the vast majority of Iraqis, their current plan, the latest of several failed approaches is to train up Iraqis to take their place on the streets. All they've managed to do so far is create a few moderately efficient shiite death squads and some largely useless light forces with zero morale, shit equipment, less than three weeks training and the metaphorical equivalent of a big target on their back, half of whom are probably also working for the resistance. Electricity and water don't work two years after Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" and heavily armed criminal gangs roam at will while fanatical jihadi's mortar pilgrims and the whole of Anbar province looks about ready to move into stage two guerilla warfare.

Meanwhile our leaders cannot admit they have failed and seek to shift blame.

Iraq is fast turning into a much larger Chechnya. We can expect it to breed terrorism directly and to judge by reports of its role in the radicalisation of our recent bombers, it is already indirectly causing people to get killed here.

Your people did this mears, you can't get away from that. They fucked it up utterly in a sustained display of ludicrous incompetence fit to rival Elphinstone, Custer, Raglan and Hitler in the annals of military stupidity.