M.Dancer Posted September 12, 2007 Report Posted September 12, 2007 Do you KNOW for certain the Taliban did that? Yes. Perhaps your tinfoil was on the fritz that day and you didn't pick up the transmission. Stay away from no name products.....I hear they are sabotaged from the CIA...... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted September 12, 2007 Report Posted September 12, 2007 After Sudan made it clear that bin Laden and his group were no longer welcome that year, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan — with previously established connections between the groups, a similar outlook on world affairs and largely isolated from American political influence and military power — provided a perfect location for al-Qaeda to establish its headquarters. Al-Qaeda enjoyed the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their Ministry of Defense, although only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
buffycat Posted September 12, 2007 Report Posted September 12, 2007 (edited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda Wiki? :lol: ahhahahah Methinks they have spelled it wrong: it's Al CIAduh!! Edited September 12, 2007 by buffycat Quote "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" ~ Ghandi
M.Dancer Posted September 12, 2007 Report Posted September 12, 2007 Wiki? :lol: ahhahahah Methinks they have spelled it wrong: it's Al CIAduh!! Coming from the gal who more often or not fails to provide a link .....that's truly funny. For you It should be spelled....AL CANduh Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
buffycat Posted September 12, 2007 Report Posted September 12, 2007 Coming from the gal who more often or not fails to provide a link .....that's truly funny. For you It should be spelled....AL CANduh Wow... really slipping today huh? LINK Quote "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" ~ Ghandi
kuzadd Posted September 12, 2007 Report Posted September 12, 2007 (edited) Yes.Perhaps your tinfoil was on the fritz that day and you didn't pick up the transmission. Stay away from no name products.....I hear they are sabotaged from the CIA...... How do you KNOW that, you KNOW the Taliban did that? Because they actully said, they did not! In fact there is a journalist, CANADIAN,Ibid Ullah Jan who interviewed OBL prior to the attack on 9/11, and he could not even communicate with OBL, as the Taliban had taken away his means of communications, and in fact the journalist had to send word, by foot, to OBL, prior to the interview. Then when he interviewed him (OBL), OBL complained to Mr Jan, that the Taliban were not taking him seriously. So you KNOW that the Taliban supported OBL eh? Sorry, no link available, it was an interview, but he speaks of it in one of his book's. from one of the articles I posted links to CIA spokesperson "I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him. He was a pain in the neck.” "Allegedly, Hashimi also proposes that the Taliban would hold bin Laden in one location long enough for the US to locate and kill him. However, this offer is refused." Give Him an "F" in the War on Terror: How Bush Was Offered Bin Laden and Blew It http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/general...ve_him_an_f.htm yah, the Taliban just supported OBL to the nines , they tried so many times to give him to the Americans Inc. Clinton But MDancer , you de man! Edited September 12, 2007 by kuzadd Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
GostHacked Posted September 13, 2007 Report Posted September 13, 2007 Actually, Afghanistan was allowing them to train and organize there. If a country permits its land to be used to organize atacks on another it is putting itself in the line of fire. Just ask Pancho Villa. I will make it clearer since my last post confused most. Actually, screw it, here are a few questions. Was Osama Bin Laden part of A - Taliban B - Al-Queda C - Muhajedeen D - All of the above? (Guess it depends on your news source) For the above question, who did the US back to fight off the Soviets? Then ask Why? Quote
kuzadd Posted September 14, 2007 Report Posted September 14, 2007 http://www.grailwerk.com/docs/nytimes10.htm May 25, 2003 'Charlie Wilson's War': Arming the Mujahedeen So it was hardly a surprise after the Soviets' humiliating withdrawal in 1989 that the C.I.A.'s spymasters invited Wilson out to celebrate at the agency's headquarters at Langley, Va. On a large movie screen in an auditorium at the George Bush Center for Intelligence flashed a huge quotation from Pakistan's president, Gen. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, who had willingly allowed the C.I.A.'s arms pipeline to flow through his country. Zia credited Wilson with the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan with the words, ''Charlie did it.'' ( General Zia, another Pakistani military dictator, who worked hand in glove with the US/CIA, died under mysterious circumstances in a plane crash, I wonder if Mushareff, will meet the same fate? http://www.guerrillacampaign.com/zia.html Who killed Zia?) During the 1980's, Wilson used his seat on a military appropriations subcommittee to steer billions of dollars in secret funding to the C.I.A. to funnel arms to the mujahedeen. The decisions were made in secret by Wilson and other lawmakers on the appropriations committee. To help make his case, Wilson exploited one of the decade's scandals, the Iran-contra affair, arguing that Democrats who were voting to cut off funding for the contras in Nicaragua could demonstrate their willingness to stand up to the Soviet empire by approving more money for the Afghan fighters. what? the decisions were made in secret! NO one leaked it, for years and years!!! OMG, how is that possible? it was one of the largest covert CIA operations! http://www.amazon.com/Charlie-Wilsons-War-...n/dp/0871138549 Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History All decisions made in secret! sorry, in a round about way, I am answering who funded the mujahadeen, to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars, inc., OBL! Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
M.Dancer Posted September 14, 2007 Report Posted September 14, 2007 I will make it clearer since my last post confused most. Actually, screw it, here are a few questions.Was Osama Bin Laden part of A - Taliban B - Al-Queda C - Muhajedeen D - All of the above? (Guess it depends on your news source) For the above question, who did the US back to fight off the Soviets? Then ask Why? All fine and dandy and all pretty much irrelevant. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
GostHacked Posted September 14, 2007 Report Posted September 14, 2007 All fine and dandy and all pretty much irrelevant. This does not answer any of those questions at all. It is very relevant, because it gives a history and a context about Osama's condition of being alive or dead. You need to learn and understand the history behind OBL, the CIA, and terrorism. Is he dead? Is he alive? If he is dead, was it natural causes? Untimely accidental death? Some elite military or paramilitary involement? JBG Actually, Afghanistan was allowing them to train and organize there. If a country permits its land to be used to organize atacks on another it is putting itself in the line of fire. Just ask Pancho Villa. Maybe if my questions were addressed we can show who was all involved with the training, and how it got to that point. Everyone wants to deal with the NOW and say the past is irrelevant. If you don't learn the past then everything that is stated today without the history then becomes irrelevant. Quote
White Doors Posted September 14, 2007 Report Posted September 14, 2007 Maybe if my questions were addressed we can show who was all involved with the training, and how it got to that point. Everyone wants to deal with the NOW and say the past is irrelevant. If you don't learn the past then everything that is stated today without the history then becomes irrelevant. Harmid Karzai was part of the Muhajedeen as well. Wait, did you have a point again? Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
GostHacked Posted September 14, 2007 Report Posted September 14, 2007 Harmid Karzai was part of the Muhajedeen as well.Wait, did you have a point again? Only if the reply had a point. Because we are talking about Osama Bin Laden. But it does seems like Karzai was with the Muhajedeen. According to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Karzai ....then returned to work as a fund-raiser supporting anti-Soviet Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Soviet intervention for the rest of the 1980s. After the fall of Najibullah's Soviet-backed government in 1992,.....When the Taliban emerged in the 1990s, Karzai was initially among their supporters. However, as with many other early Taliban supporters, he broke with the Taliban, citing distrust of their links to Pakistan. Ahh, Pakistan comes up again. Quote
White Doors Posted September 14, 2007 Report Posted September 14, 2007 I think you are saying that Osama came hoem to roost because the CIA helped the Muhajedeen. My point was that the Muhajedeen was not a one man show and it wasn't necessarily bad that the CIA supported them. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
geoffrey Posted September 15, 2007 Report Posted September 15, 2007 My point was that the Muhajedeen was not a one man show and it wasn't necessarily bad that the CIA supported them. It was essiential to prevent communism from invading the whole region. Support for the Muhajedeen by the CIA was an absolute neccessity. Who knows what the outcome would have been otherwise?? It would have shored up resource access for the Soviet Union and maybe lead to a stepping stone to Iran, which would be disasterous for Western resource stability at the time. There were obviously various elements of the faction... but they were all against godless-communism. Karzai obviously was on the pro-American side (or came to be so) and Osama seems to have degraded into a religious zealot over the years, eventually being against all things he viewed as godless. So that's where we are. Support of the Afghani's against the Soviets was essiential to Western interests however, the price wasn't that much for what it accomplished. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
jbg Posted September 15, 2007 Report Posted September 15, 2007 It was essiential to prevent communism from invading the whole region. Support for the Muhajedeen by the CIA was an absolute neccessity. Who knows what the outcome would have been otherwise?? It would have shored up resource access for the Soviet Union and maybe lead to a stepping stone to Iran, which would be disasterous for Western resource stability at the time.If I could re-invent history, and had to choose between the fall of the Soviet Union and September 11, I'd choose events to play out just the way they did. Frankly, we will never know what evils the continuation of the Soveity Union would have wrought. We don't know how many would have died in famines and wars. We don't know the cost in human freedom.What we do know is that there are far more free countries in the world now than before (link, opens in Excel). Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 15, 2007 Report Posted September 15, 2007 What we do know is that there are far more free countries in the world now than before (link, opens in Excel). Yes, that is what 45 years, millions of lives, and trillions of dollars was all about. And that is why an American president can travel to Eastern Europe to cheering crowds. Canada was part of that struggle, but some want to forget it ever happened that way. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
geoffrey Posted September 15, 2007 Report Posted September 15, 2007 Canada was part of that struggle, but some want to forget it ever happened that way. Mulroney may have been, but Trudeau did have Castro in the front row of his funeral. How anti-communist could he have been? Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 15, 2007 Report Posted September 15, 2007 Mulroney may have been, but Trudeau did have Castro in the front row of his funeral. How anti-communist could he have been? It wasn't just Trudeau....IIRC, Canada went on alert during the Cuban Missile Crisis despite PM Diefenbaker reluctance to go to DefCon 3...Douglas Harkness knew better, as did the flag officers. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kuzadd Posted September 15, 2007 Report Posted September 15, 2007 (edited) Actually, Afghanistan was allowing them to train and organize there. If a country permits its land to be used to organize atacks on another it is putting itself in the line of fire. Just ask Pancho Villa. so jbg, what's your problem then with the 9/11 attacks? "If a country permits its land to be used to organize atacks on another it is putting itself in the line of fire. " The US has used it land, it's money, it's own army to create all manner of terrorism and attacks. From the Contra's in Nicaraugua, to Death squads in Panama, to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, who INVADED Russia, to the PKK in Iraq, RIGHT NOW, to terrorist groups in Iran, RIGHT NOW, covert attacks on Cuba, to all the terrorists the US trains on US soil at the 'School of the Americas' and on and on and on!!!! So everyone in the US should then, therefore, according to your "opinion" suffer, the consequences, all US citizens have put themselves in the "line of fire" ? Or, are you just going to promote another double standard ? Edited September 15, 2007 by kuzadd Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
jbg Posted September 15, 2007 Report Posted September 15, 2007 Mulroney may have been, but Trudeau did have Castro in the front row of his funeral. How anti-communist could he have been?Trudeau did allow Reagan to use Northern Alberta for certain missile sites, I believe. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
geoffrey Posted September 15, 2007 Report Posted September 15, 2007 Trudeau did allow Reagan to use Northern Alberta for certain missile sites, I believe. Oh I'm sure. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
M.Dancer Posted September 18, 2007 Report Posted September 18, 2007 Oh I'm sure. The cruise missile was tested during Trudeau's era. Many were against it. I was iffy about it, I thought we should be paid more. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Rue Posted September 28, 2007 Report Posted September 28, 2007 "He remote viewed the Face on Mars and found that five million years ago there was a magnificent city there near the Cydonia region inhabited by tall pale beings that had large distended heads." I really get annoyed when people make fun of my ancestors and the size of their heads. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 29, 2007 Report Posted September 29, 2007 The cruise missile was tested during Trudeau's era. Many were against it. I was iffy about it, I thought we should be paid more. I agree..the moose should have had a better union. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
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.