Former CIA Head: "Israel isn't worth an American Dollar." - Page 2

Darth Rotor · 3rd October 2007, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Right. Ignorant hypocrisy exposed.

BTW, remember the time before this one, when you went out of your way to try to attack me for starting a thread claiming it was pointless and no one would reply...and yet, like a fool, you forgot that you yourself had replied in depth? Then I copy/pasted it and you apologized in embarrassed fashion?

Evasion again noted. Why do you have the energy to bicker, but not to present a concise summary of Scheuer's point? Could it be you don't have one? Try going back to On Topic posting in your own thread, a complaint you made to me at least once, hypocrite, in some of the other threads you started where you didn't care for my replies. You asked me to stay OT or not post. Do you likewise.

Practice as you preach, EG, and as your prefer, and get back to OT.

Scheuer, the remark, I take in one way, you take it ____________ (how?)

DR

FireGarden · 4th October 2007, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

The US never funded or trained Osama bin Laden or any of his inner circle. The people funded and trained by the United States through the CIA's ISI back-channel formed the core of what became the Northern Alliance.

Has wiki got it wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Origin

Quote:

The basis of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to any group resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and started the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing these U.S.-backed training camps for the Muslims. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war".[13]

The Taliban were based in the Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan regions, and were overwhelmingly ethnic Pashtuns and predominantly Durrani Pashtuns. They received training and arms from Pakistan, the U.S. as well as other Middle Eastern countries who had been recruited by the U.S. to thwart the Soviet invasion of this region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahid...of_Afghanistan

Quote:

The mujahideen won when the Soviet Union pulled troops out of Afghanistan in 1989, followed by the fall of the Mohammad Najibullah regime in 1992. However, the mujahideen did not establish a united government, many of the larger mujahideen groups began to fight each other, and they were in turn ousted from power by the radical splinter group known as the Taliban in 1996.

Neither the Taliban nor the Northern Alliance existed under those labels in the war with the Soviets.

The Taliban are not the Arab fighters of OBL. They are Pashtuns. And before they were the Taliban, they were funded by America -- with the help of OBL.

Ziggurat · 4th October 2007, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by FireGarden

Has wiki got it wrong?

Wong? Not exactly. The apparent meaning of the statement "the basis of the Taliban was provided" is rather indirect. One could just as easily say that the Soviet invasion of occupation provided the basis for the Taliban. Or one could go back even further, to WW2 and the ensuing cold war. The Taliban did not exist in the 1980's, it did not exist during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and it did not exist during the period which the CIA provided support for the mujahedeen. When the Taliban did emerge, it indeed had the support of an external state's intelligence apparatus, but it wasn't the CIA: it was Pakastan's ISI.

Quote:

The Taliban are not the Arab fighters of OBL. They are Pashtuns. And before they were the Taliban, they were funded by America -- with the help of OBL.

You are correct to draw the distinction between the Pashtun Taliban and the largely Arab Al Qaeda. But your statement that the Taliban was funded by the US before they became the Taliban doesn't make sense. Some members of the Taliban were part of the US-backed Mujahedeen (which were mostly funded by Saudi Arabia, NOT the US - our primary contribution was Stinger missiles), but that's hardly the same thing. It's not like there was some pre-existing organization which just changed its name to the Taliban at a later date. The Taliban, as the Taliban, were a purely post-soviet phenomenon, and members of the anti-soviet mujahedeen could be found among their enemies in the Northern Alliance just as easily.

FireGarden · 5th October 2007, 03:03 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

One could just as easily say that the Soviet invasion of occupation provided the basis for the Taliban. Or one could go back even further, to WW2 and the ensuing cold war.

Yes, we could.
It would still leave American support in the picture.

Quote:

But your statement that the Taliban was funded by the US before they became the Taliban doesn't make sense.

Sorry. I can see now that my statement wasn't clear.
The people who became the Taliban were supported before the organisation called the Taliban was formed. Actually, you still say it more clearly:

Quote:

Some members of the Taliban were part of the US-backed Mujahedeen (which were mostly funded by Saudi Arabia, NOT the US - our primary contribution was Stinger missiles), but that's hardly the same thing. It's not like there was some pre-existing organization which just changed its name to the Taliban at a later date. The Taliban, as the Taliban, were a purely post-soviet phenomenon, and members of the anti-soviet mujahedeen could be found among their enemies in the Northern Alliance just as easily.

I agree.
Although wiki does say that the US put funds as well as arms into Afghanistan, I can't find the actual numbers.

EGarrett · 5th October 2007, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Evasion again noted. Why do you have the energy to bicker, but not to present a concise summary of Scheuer's point? Could it be you don't have one? Try going back to On Topic posting in your own thread, a complaint you made to me at least once, hypocrite, in some of the other threads you started where you didn't care for my replies. You asked me to stay OT or not post. Do you likewise.

Practice as you preach, EG, and as your prefer, and get back to OT.

Scheuer, the remark, I take in one way, you take it ____________ (how?)

DR

I'm still taking issue with the first line of your post. You started out with a personal attack, of which you yourself are more than guilty. You've now tried to duck it. Don't sling the mud if you don't like having it back on you.

In the meantime, if you simply write down Scheuer's quote word for word re: Voting, you'll see what he said, and how it is far more broad and dismissive then what you say.

3rd October 2007, 08:49 AM	#41
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,257	Originally Posted by EGarrett Right. Ignorant hypocrisy exposed. BTW, remember the time before this one, when you went out of your way to try to attack me for starting a thread claiming it was pointless and no one would reply...and yet, like a fool, you forgot that you yourself had replied in depth? Then I copy/pasted it and you apologized in embarrassed fashion? Evasion again noted. Why do you have the energy to bicker, but not to present a concise summary of Scheuer's point? Could it be you don't have one? Try going back to On Topic posting in your own thread, a complaint you made to me at least once, hypocrite, in some of the other threads you started where you didn't care for my replies. You asked me to stay OT or not post. Do you likewise. Practice as you preach, EG, and as your prefer, and get back to OT. Scheuer, the remark, I take in one way, you take it ____________ (how?) DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

4th October 2007, 03:13 AM	#42
FireGarden Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Spannungsbogen -- without a visa Posts: 5,043	Originally Posted by Cylinder The US never funded or trained Osama bin Laden or any of his inner circle. The people funded and trained by the United States through the CIA's ISI back-channel formed the core of what became the Northern Alliance. Has wiki got it wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Origin Quote: The basis of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to any group resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and started the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing these U.S.-backed training camps for the Muslims. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war".[13] The Taliban were based in the Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan regions, and were overwhelmingly ethnic Pashtuns and predominantly Durrani Pashtuns. They received training and arms from Pakistan, the U.S. as well as other Middle Eastern countries who had been recruited by the U.S. to thwart the Soviet invasion of this region. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahid...of_Afghanistan Quote: The mujahideen won when the Soviet Union pulled troops out of Afghanistan in 1989, followed by the fall of the Mohammad Najibullah regime in 1992. However, the mujahideen did not establish a united government, many of the larger mujahideen groups began to fight each other, and they were in turn ousted from power by the radical splinter group known as the Taliban in 1996. Neither the Taliban nor the Northern Alliance existed under those labels in the war with the Soviets. The Taliban are not the Arab fighters of OBL. They are Pashtuns. And before they were the Taliban, they were funded by America -- with the help of OBL.
	__________________ When Americans talk about freedom, it’s our secular code word for salvation. There’s no salvation outside the church; there’s no freedom outside the American way of life. -- James Carroll B'tselem Tony Karon's blog Last edited by FireGarden; 4th October 2007 at 03:18 AM.

4th October 2007, 02:00 PM	#43
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,195	Originally Posted by FireGarden Has wiki got it wrong? Wong? Not exactly. The apparent meaning of the statement "the basis of the Taliban was provided" is rather indirect. One could just as easily say that the Soviet invasion of occupation provided the basis for the Taliban. Or one could go back even further, to WW2 and the ensuing cold war. The Taliban did not exist in the 1980's, it did not exist during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and it did not exist during the period which the CIA provided support for the mujahedeen. When the Taliban did emerge, it indeed had the support of an external state's intelligence apparatus, but it wasn't the CIA: it was Pakastan's ISI. Quote: The Taliban are not the Arab fighters of OBL. They are Pashtuns. And before they were the Taliban, they were funded by America -- with the help of OBL. You are correct to draw the distinction between the Pashtun Taliban and the largely Arab Al Qaeda. But your statement that the Taliban was funded by the US before they became the Taliban doesn't make sense. Some members of the Taliban were part of the US-backed Mujahedeen (which were mostly funded by Saudi Arabia, NOT the US - our primary contribution was Stinger missiles), but that's hardly the same thing. It's not like there was some pre-existing organization which just changed its name to the Taliban at a later date. The Taliban, as the Taliban, were a purely post-soviet phenomenon, and members of the anti-soviet mujahedeen could be found among their enemies in the Northern Alliance just as easily.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

5th October 2007, 03:03 AM	#44
FireGarden Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Spannungsbogen -- without a visa Posts: 5,043	Originally Posted by Ziggurat One could just as easily say that the Soviet invasion of occupation provided the basis for the Taliban. Or one could go back even further, to WW2 and the ensuing cold war. Yes, we could. It would still leave American support in the picture. Quote: But your statement that the Taliban was funded by the US before they became the Taliban doesn't make sense. Sorry. I can see now that my statement wasn't clear. The people who became the Taliban were supported before the organisation called the Taliban was formed. Actually, you still say it more clearly: Quote: Some members of the Taliban were part of the US-backed Mujahedeen (which were mostly funded by Saudi Arabia, NOT the US - our primary contribution was Stinger missiles), but that's hardly the same thing. It's not like there was some pre-existing organization which just changed its name to the Taliban at a later date. The Taliban, as the Taliban, were a purely post-soviet phenomenon, and members of the anti-soviet mujahedeen could be found among their enemies in the Northern Alliance just as easily. I agree. Although wiki does say that the US put funds as well as arms into Afghanistan, I can't find the actual numbers.
	__________________ When Americans talk about freedom, it’s our secular code word for salvation. There’s no salvation outside the church; there’s no freedom outside the American way of life. -- James Carroll B'tselem Tony Karon's blog

5th October 2007, 08:41 PM	#45
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Evasion again noted. Why do you have the energy to bicker, but not to present a concise summary of Scheuer's point? Could it be you don't have one? Try going back to On Topic posting in your own thread, a complaint you made to me at least once, hypocrite, in some of the other threads you started where you didn't care for my replies. You asked me to stay OT or not post. Do you likewise. Practice as you preach, EG, and as your prefer, and get back to OT. Scheuer, the remark, I take in one way, you take it ____________ (how?) DR I'm still taking issue with the first line of your post. You started out with a personal attack, of which you yourself are more than guilty. You've now tried to duck it. Don't sling the mud if you don't like having it back on you. In the meantime, if you simply write down Scheuer's quote word for word re: Voting, you'll see what he said, and how it is far more broad and dismissive then what you say.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG