Iran

[M.Dancer]

So then we agree and my earlier comment still stands. It ok for us to fund the enemy of our enemies but once we are done with them we wash our hands of it. And of course nobody else can do! I hope you see the hypocrisy.

Not only do I not see the hypocrisy and don't know what you are referring to.

[gc1765]

Wrong again. Alqaeda didn't exist in 1989.

Well the name "al qaeda" may not have existed in 1989, but Osama and his buddies (now called al qaeda) did exist in 1989 and were fighting the soviets. That's what I meant when I said al qaeda.

P.S. I found this on wikipedia:

In 2005, Robin Cook, the late British member of Parliament and former foreign secretary, wrote that "Al-Qaida, literally 'the database', was originally the name of a computer file listing the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Soviets." [27] Dr. Sa'ad Al-Fagih, a surgeon at Peshawar (where the Mujahideen recruiting happened) further explained that the computer database (al-Qaeda) was necessary to fix problems associated with a lack of documentation about the fighters who were recruited. [28][29] The al-Qaida database was later developed to allow email communications between parties in different countries to coordinate their efforts.

Link

[M.Dancer]

Wrong again. Alqaeda didn't exist in 1989.

Well the name "al qaeda" may not have existed in 1989, but Osama and his buddies (now called al qaeda) did exist in 1989 and were fighting the soviets. That's what I meant when I said al qaeda.

P.S. I found this on wikipedia:

In 2005, Robin Cook, the late British member of Parliament and former foreign secretary, wrote that "Al-Qaida, literally 'the database', was originally the name of a computer file listing the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Soviets." [27] Dr. Sa'ad Al-Fagih, a surgeon at Peshawar (where the Mujahideen recruiting happened) further explained that the computer database (al-Qaeda) was necessary to fix problems associated with a lack of documentation about the fighters who were recruited. [28][29] The al-Qaida database was later developed to allow email communications between parties in different countries to coordinate their efforts.

Link

other translations lists Alqaeda as the outhouse, the base, the organization

[lost&outofcontrol]

So why are you choosing the least credible source?

True, 5 years after the soviet departure the Taliban emerged, and 2 years later gaiuned power, but to say that they were once the Mujeehadden is a stretch....considering that the Northern Alliance has a much better claim on that lineage.

Am I agreeing with you? No. Because the US did business with Pakistan and pakistan saw the Taliban as useful does not mean the US funded them. That is tin foil hat thinking. The funding that the US gave was one time and was mission specific.

Robert Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski are, I think pretty good sources. But let's forget about the Taliban for a second. The fact remains that we've funded terrorist* organizations in the past because of the enemy of my enemy is my friend maxim. We've funded death squads, coups against democratically elected governments. and like I said replying to Argus' post:

I think the Hells Angels are a lot more sensible than the Iranians. The Hells Angels would not be openly funding attacks on a ruthless and powerful rival which did not presently threaten any of their operations. They're not that dumb.

Kinda like how we funded the Taliban for years so they could fight against the soviets (who aren’t much better themselves of course) and still indirectly fund them through Pakistan or how we funded paramilitary death squads against the Sandinistas or better yet how we funded dozens of coups against democratically elected socialist government across the globe.

I fear the Iranians still have much to learn from us.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in this? We are allowed to openly fund "guerrillas" and yet we object to Iran funding Hezbollah (or Hamas even though Hamas was democratically elected!) You've done nothing but argue over semantics while totally ignoring the subject of my original post.

*ever noticed how they only become terrorist organizations when we don't need them anymore

**edit**

We did not fund the Taliban only one time as you stated.

Our government publicly supported the Taliban right up until September 11.

Throughout the 1990s, the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was used by the CIA as a go-between

linky

When the CIA tells Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) to jump they ask how high.

[M.Dancer]

Okay, I will put aside that we did fund the mujeehadeen, but did not fund the taleban, or alqaeda ( but I got to say....the global research article needs more alcan and less partisan clinton bashing opinion beyond what is factual and documented and not be "sources" speaking to whomever......)

I'm not sure who the "we" are...are you an american?

That being said, why is defending your interests hypocrisy? Would you prefer to be undefended but morally pure?

What is hypocritacal about opposing Hezbollah? Would you rather we support all terrorist groups? Or would you rather we attack all terrorist groups? Who do you plan on deciding who the terrorists are? Personally, my first litmus test is: Do they want me or my friends dead.....

Are you suggesting that because in the past the US engaged in dodgy behavior, they can't act now? Bugger that noise....

[Rue]

Outrageous. The very idea that some people think a nuclear attack is a remotely conceivable notion is shocking.

Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker writer had an article this month saying that the war in Lebanon was going to be used as an excuse to hit Iran. The war ended sooner than the plan could unfold.

Either that or Seymour has been drinking too much coffee and got too excited.

[lost&outofcontrol]

That being said, why is defending your interests hypocrisy? Would you prefer to be undefended but morally pure?

When I say we, I mean western world/culture (U.S., Canada, UK, most of Europe, Japan...) in general.

-We create/fund "freedom fighters"* to fight our ideological enemies.

-Once we are done with "freedom fighters", we label them "terrorist".

-We raise hell and threaten/go to war if our enemies dare do the same thing.

-Why are you the one in the "right" and not your enemy? From their perspective, the enemy is you.

-Your definition of "your interest" is in fact a product of all current societies and refers to the belief that there are two basic opposing principles, good/bad, you/your enemies.

-You're definition of a "terrorist" is laughable and the reason why I won't be replying to any of your future post until you get a clue about what constitutes a terrorist**.

-I won't rationalize with the irrational.

*One man's "freedom fighters" is another's "terrorists".

**Patrice Gueniffey definition of terrorism: A strategy of instituting a quantity of violence of variable intensity having the goal of provoking the greatest amount of terror judge necessary to accomplish the objective which is to communicate a message for which the terrorist believe all other method has failed. (My crappy translation from French)

[jdobbin]

Either that or Seymour has been drinking too much coffee and got too excited.

No one in the administration denied Hersh's report. Hersh never looks like he gets excited.

[KrustyKidd]

Patrice Gueniffey definition of terrorism: A strategy of instituting a quantity of violence of variable intensity having the goal of provoking the greatest amount of terror judge necessary to accomplish the objective which is to communicate a message for which the terrorist believe all other method has failed.

Objectives being society rather than military targets.

Classical Greek Warfare which is adopeted by every Western Nation on earth destroys the military capability of the enemy.

[Black Dog]

Objectives being society rather than military targets.

Can you clarify? Are you saying terrosim is a weapon to induce social change or simply that they target "society" (if so, a better term would be civilian targets or infrastructure).

[M.Dancer]

-I won't rationalize with the irrational.

I'm not sure if you are flaming or fleeing.....

[lost&outofcontrol]

-I won't rationalize with the irrational.

I'm not sure if you are flaming or fleeing.....

Fleeing

[M.Dancer]

-I won't rationalize with the irrational.

I'm not sure if you are flaming or fleeing.....

Fleeing

I'm amazed you are capable of making that decision. Wouldn't surrendering be more appropriate? No need to decide if you are right or wrong, friend or foe.....

[KrustyKidd]

Can you clarify? Are you saying terrosim is a weapon to induce social change or simply that they target "society" (if so, a better term would be civilian targets or infrastructure).

It's not a weapon for starters, it's a method of placing pressure on a society. And, it does not directly induce anything but fear within that populaton that it has targeted. The aim though is to induce social change in the terrorist's favor. So, if coupled with a 'good cop bad cop' sort of thing where the attacks eventually may be followed up with a solid aid program or a cohesive strong alternative to a weakened government then it can be more fruitfully exploited. We have not seen that aspect of it - yet.

[bradco]

So why are you choosing the least credible source?

True, 5 years after the soviet departure the Taliban emerged, and 2 years later gaiuned power, but to say that they were once the Mujeehadden is a stretch....considering that the Northern Alliance has a much better claim on that lineage.

Am I agreeing with you? No. Because the US did business with Pakistan and pakistan saw the Taliban as useful does not mean the US funded them. That is tin foil hat thinking. The funding that the US gave was one time and was mission specific.

Robert Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski are, I think pretty good sources. But let's forget about the Taliban for a second. The fact remains that we've funded terrorist* organizations in the past because of the enemy of my enemy is my friend maxim. We've funded death squads, coups against democratically elected governments. and like I said replying to Argus' post:

I think the Hells Angels are a lot more sensible than the Iranians. The Hells Angels would not be openly funding attacks on a ruthless and powerful rival which did not presently threaten any of their operations. They're not that dumb.

Kinda like how we funded the Taliban for years so they could fight against the soviets (who aren’t much better themselves of course) and still indirectly fund them through Pakistan or how we funded paramilitary death squads against the Sandinistas or better yet how we funded dozens of coups against democratically elected socialist government across the globe.

I fear the Iranians still have much to learn from us.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in this? We are allowed to openly fund "guerrillas" and yet we object to Iran funding Hezbollah (or Hamas even though Hamas was democratically elected!) You've done nothing but argue over semantics while totally ignoring the subject of my original post.

*ever noticed how they only become terrorist organizations when we don't need them anymore

**edit**

We did not fund the Taliban only one time as you stated.

Our government publicly supported the Taliban right up until September 11.

Throughout the 1990s, the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was used by the CIA as a go-between

linky

When the CIA tells Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) to jump they ask how high.

terribly biased source but interesting read nonetheless on american intervention

http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/blum.htm

[KrustyKidd]

terribly biased source but interesting read nonetheless on american intervention

http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/blum.htm

Haiti, 1987-94: The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Now, they create conditions for voters to actually decide for themselves. My things have changed.

[Black Dog]

Now, they create conditions for voters to actually decide for themselves. My things have changed.

Er..you forgot the bit about the U.S. and Canada backing the 2004 coup that ousted Aristide. Of course, let's also not forget what happens when voters decide wrong (see: Hamas election). My things haven't changed.

[KrustyKidd]

Er..you forgot the bit about the U.S. and Canada backing the 2004 coup that ousted Aristide. Of course, let's also not forget what happens when voters decide wrong (see: Hamas election). My things haven't changed.

Were you for the coup, against it or a fence sitter? France was for it, as was the US and Canada for good reason - the guy was inept. We didn't overthrow him, his own countrymen did. As for Hamas, if Al Queda takes Saudi Arabia I suppose you are all for that which shows where your logic cells are.

You know Hamas, the guys that believe

"there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."

Ya, Mr Negotiator there Black Dog. That's from their constitution and you feel that you can negotiate or deal ingood faith with a democraticly elected government like that? Some coups should happen and be backed by us, that's one of them.

[Black Dog]

Were you for the coup, against it or a fence sitter? France was for it, as was the US and Canada for good reason - the guy was inept. We didn't overthrow him, his own countrymen did.

You're right: we armed them, trained them and financed them. Other than that, though, they were, like, totally on their own.

As for Hamas, if Al Queda takes Saudi Arabia I suppose you are all for that which shows where your logic cells are

Sorry: what's the parrallel between a democratically elected government made up of a grassroots popular movement and and hypothetical coup launched by a fringe group from Jihadi Central?

Ya, Mr Negotiator there Black Dog. That's from their constitution and you feel that you can negotiate or deal ingood faith with a democraticly elected government like that?

We negotiate and deal in good faith with worse all the time.

Some coups should happen and be backed by us, that's one of them.

So, basically, you're admitting your affection for voters actually deciding for themselves is really an affectation. You want the veneer of democracy, democracy Lite, but at the heart of it, you still want to pull the strings.

[KrustyKidd]

You're right: we armed them, trained them and financed them. Other than that, though, they were, like, totally on their own.

Them the people? It seems that most western governments figured the elections were rigged and, every oppostiion party boycotted them anyhow. So now you are blaming the west for the coup when it would seem that it was inevitable? I mean, if there wasn't people to train or arm or support then no matter what we thought or did there would still be an inept guy in power right?

Sorry: what's the parrallel between a democratically elected government made up of a grassroots popular movement and and hypothetical coup launched by a fringe group from Jihadi Central?

Well, Hamas is a terrorist organization and so is Al Queda.

Sorry: what's the parrallel between a democratically elected government made up of a grassroots popular movement and and hypothetical coup launched by a fringe group from Jihadi Central?

Al Queda is hardly a fictional group and they were very popular in Saudi Arabia. You should catch up on current events as you seem to gloss over this detail. In reality, there is no difference between them save Hamas is a regional group whereas Al QUeda ultimitely seeks a larger goal. Another differeence is that Saudi Arabia does not have elections so that AL Queda is hardly likely to become elected as Hamas was. If they were, I would not support the democraticly elected goverment of Saudi Arabia as they would be terrorists. I suppose as I said that you would. Very strange. I take it that if in 1939 you woulod support the Nazi Party in Germany too.

We negotiate and deal in good faith with worse all the time.

Welcome to politics. Stalin was an ally at one time too.

So, basically, you're admitting your affection for voters actually deciding for themselves is really an affectation. You want the veneer of democracy, democracy Lite, but at the heart of it, you still want to pull the strings.

When the people of Germany elected a government that wished to dominate the world or Palistine elects a government that wishes to destroy one of our allies then I don't support them. I take it you do.