PDA

View Full Version : How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11?



revelarts
11-24-2014, 06:16 PM
Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11 By Washington's Blog (http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/washington-s-blog)
Global Research, September 05, 2012
Washington's Blog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/sleeping-with-the-devil-how-u-s-and-saudi-backing-of-al-qaeda-led-to-911.html) 5 September 2012

Region: Middle East & North Africa (http://www.globalresearch.ca/region/middle-east)
Theme: 9/11 & 'War on Terrorism' (http://www.globalresearch.ca/theme/9-11-war-on-terrorism), Intelligence (http://www.globalresearch.ca/theme/intelligence)
In-depth Report: AFGHANISTAN (http://www.globalresearch.ca/indepthreport/afghanistan), THE BALKANS (http://www.globalresearch.ca/indepthreport/the-balkans)


678
53 7
4958


http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/reaganandmujahideen1.jpg

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/isi_and_cia_directors_in_mujahideen_camp1987.jpg
Front row, from left: Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Willian Webster; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official, Milt Bearden at a Mujahideen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987. (source RAWA)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/reaganandmujahideen1.jpg Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/atwork.html))
We Created Al Qaeda to Fight the Soviets in Afghanistan Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-17/brzezinski1.html) on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of “Al Qaeda” in the 1970s (http://www.thenation.com/article/blowback-prequel) to fight the Soviets.
Brzezinski told Al Qaeda’s forefathers – the Mujahadin:

We know of their deep belief in god – that they’re confident that their struggle will succeed. – That land over-there is yours – and you’ll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and god is on your side.

CIA director and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates confirmed (http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Ultimate-Insiders-Story-Presidents/dp/0684834979/sr=8-1/qid=1163059092/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8219747-6907339?ie=UTF8&s=books) in his memoir that the U.S. backed the Mujahadin in the 1970s.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agrees:

MSNBC reported (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/#.UEaKb6BFbKc) in 1998:


As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar – the MAK – which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation.
***
The CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan … found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow.
***
To this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee making those decisions, told my colleague Robert Windrem that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. “It was worth it,” he said.
“Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union,” he said.
Indeed, the U.S. started backing Al Qaeda’s forefathers even before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. As Brzezinski told (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html) Le Nouvel Observateur in a 1998 interview:

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
***
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
The Washington Post reported (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/110956747.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+23%2C+2002&author=Joe+Stephens+and+David+B.+Ottaway&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=A.01&desc=From+U.S.%2C+the+ABC%27s+of+Jihad%3B+Violent+ Soviet-Era+Textbooks+Complicate+Afghan+Education+Efforts) in 2002:

The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings ….
The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books ….
The Council on Foreign Relations notes (http://www.cfr.org/publication/20364/pakistans_education_system_and_links_to_extremism. html):

The 9/11 Commission report (PDF) (http://www.cfr.org/publication/10353/) released in 2004 said some of Pakistan’s religious schools or madrassas served as “incubators for violent extremism.” Since then, there has been much debate over madrassas and their connection to militancy.
***
New madrassas sprouted, funded and supported by Saudi Arabia and U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,where students were encouragedto join the Afghan resistance.
And see this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/jan/17/yemen.islam).
Veteran journalist Robert Dreyfuss (http://www.robertdreyfuss.com/bio.htm) writes:

For half a century the United States and many of its allies saw what I call the “Islamic right” as convenient partners in the Cold War.
***
In the decades before 9/11, hard-core activists and organizations among Muslim fundamentalists on the far right were often viewed as allies for two reasons, because they were seen a fierce anti-communists and because the opposed secular nationalists such as Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh.
***
By the end of the 1950s, rather than allying itself with the secular forces of progress in the Middle East and the Arab world, the United States found itself in league with Saudi Arabia’s Islamist legions. Choosing Saudi Arabia over Nasser’s Egypt was probably the single biggest mistake the United States has ever made in the Middle East.
A second big mistake … occurred in the 1970s, when, at the height of the Cold War and the struggle for control of the Middle East, the United States either supported or acquiesced in the rapid growth of Islamic right in countries from Egypt to Afghanistan. In Egypt, Anwar Sadat brought the Muslim Brotherhood back to Egypt. In Syria, the United States, Israel, and Jordan supported the Muslim Brotherhood in a civil war against Syria. And … Israel quietly backed Ahmed Yassin and the Muslim Brotherhood in the West Bank and Gaza, leading to the establishment of Hamas.
Still another major mistake was the fantasy that Islam would penetrate the USSR and unravel the Soviet Union in Asia. It led to America’s support for the jihadists in Afghanistan. But … America’s alliance with the Afghan Islamists long predated the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and had its roots in CIA activity in Afghanistan in the 1960s and in the early and mid-1970s. The Afghan jihad spawned civil war in Afghanistan in the late 1980s, gave rise to the Taliban, and got Osama bin Laden started on building Al Qaeda.
Would the Islamic right have existed without U.S. support? Of course. This is not a book for the conspiracy-minded. But there is no question that the virulence of the movement that we now confront—and which confronts many of the countries in the region, too, from Algeria to India and beyond—would have been significantly less had the United States made other choices during the Cold War.
In other words, if the U.S. and our allies hadn’t backed the radical violent Muslims instead of more stable, peaceful groups in the Middle East, radical Islam wouldn’t have grown so large.
Pakistani nuclear scientist and peace activist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervez_Hoodbhoy) Perez Hoodbhoy writes (http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Ewilson/pmpmta/2010_Hoodbhoy.doc):

Every religion, including Islam, has its crazed fanatics. Few in numbers and small in strength, they can properly be assigned to the “loony” section. This was true for Islam as well until 1979, the year of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Indeed, there may well have been no 911 but for this game-changer.
***
Officials like Richard Perle, Assistant Secretary of Defense, immediately saw Afghanistan not as the locale of a harsh and dangerous conflict to be ended but as a place to teach the Russians a lesson. Such “bleeders” became the most influential people in Washington .
***
The task of creating such solidarity fell upon Saudi Arabia, together with other conservative Arab monarchies. This duty was accepted readily and they quickly made the Afghan Jihad their central cause…. But still more importantly, to go heart and soul for jihad was crucial at a time when Saudi legitimacy as the guardians of Islam was under strong challenge by Iran, which pointed to the continued occupation of Palestine by America’s partner, Israel. An increasing number of Saudis were becoming disaffected by the House of Saud – its corruption, self-indulgence, repression, and closeness to the US. Therefore, the Jihad in Afghanistan provided an excellent outlet for the growing number of militant Sunni activists in Saudi Arabia, and a way to deal with the daily taunts of the Iranian clergy.
***
The bleeders soon organized and armed the Great Global Jihad, funded by Saudi Arabia, and executed by Pakistan. A powerful magnet for militant Sunni activists was created by the US. The most hardened and ideologically dedicated men were sought on the logic that they would be the best fighters. Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the Jihad.
American universities produced books for Afghan children that extolled the virtues of jihad and of killing communists. Readers browsing through book bazaars in Rawalpindi and Peshawar can, even today, sometimes find textbooks produced as part of the series underwritten by a USAID $50 million grant to the University of Nebraska in the 1980′s . These textbooks sought to counterbalance Marxism through creating enthusiasm in Islamic militancy. They exhorted Afghan children to “pluck out the eyes of the Soviet enemy and cut off his legs”. Years after the books were first printed they were approved by the Taliban for use in madrassas – a stamp of their ideological correctness and they are still widely available in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
At the international level, Radical Islam went into overdrive as its superpower ally, the United States, funneled support to the mujahideen. Ronald Reagan feted jihadist leaders on the White House lawn, and the U.S. press lionized them.
And the chief of the visa section at the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (J. Michael Springmann, who is now an attorney in private practice) says (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw6YHij-aCU) that the CIA insisted that visas be issued to Afghanis so they could travel to the U.S. to be trained in terrorism in the United States, and then sent back to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.
1993 World Trade Center Bombing New York District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau believed that the intelligence services could and should have stopped the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, but they were preoccupied with other issues cover. As well-known (http://www.thenation.com/article/robert-i-friedman) investigative journalist Robert I. Friedman wrote (http://books.google.com/books?id=l-MCAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=%22According+to+other+sources+familiar+with+the +case,+the+FBI+told+District+Attorney+Robert+M.+Mo rgenthau+that+Nosair+was+a+lone+gunman,+not+part+o f+a+broader+conspiracy;%22&source=bl&ots=Ri7bd4UFfI&sig=XSFrnaBeJ1cO5a402E6cQRthiPU&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22According%20to%20other%20sources%20familiar%2 0with%20the%20case%2C%20the%20FBI%20told%20Distric t%20Attorney%20Robert%20M.%20Morgenthau%20that%20N osair%20was%20a%20lone%20gunman%2C%20not%20part%20 of%20a%20broader%20conspiracy%3B%22&f=false) in New York Magazine in 1995:

Shiekh Omar Abdel Rahman commands an almost deified adoration and respect in certain Islamic circles. It was his 1980 fatwa – religious decree – condemning Anwar Sadat for making peace with Israel that is widely believed to be responsible for Sadat’s assassination a year later. (Rahman was subsequently tried but acquitted.)
***
The CIA paid to send Abdel Rahman to Peshawar ‘to preach to the Afghans about the necessity of unity to overthrow the Kabul regime,’ according to Professor Rubin. By all accounts, Rahman was brilliant at inspiring the faithful.
As a reward for his services, the CIA gave the sheikh a one-year visa to the United States in May, 1990 – even though he was on a State Department terrorism watch list that should have barred him from the country.
After a public outcry in the wake of the World Trade Centre bombing, a State Department representative discovered that Rahman had, in fact, received four United States visas dating back to December 15, 1986. All were given to him by CIA agents acting as consular officers at American embassies in Khartoum and Cairo. The CIA officers claimed they didn’t know the sheikh was one of the most notorious political figures in the Middle East and a militant on the State Department’s list of undesirables. The agent in Khartoum said that when the sheikh walked in the computers were down and the Sudanese clerk didn’t bother to check the microfiche file.
Says one top New York investigator: ‘Left with the choice between pleading stupidity or else admitting deceit, the CIA went with stupidity.’
***
The sheikh arrived in Brooklyn at a fortuitous time for the CIA. In the wake of the Soviet Union’s retreat from Afghanistan, Congress had slashed the amount of covert aid going to the mujaheddin. The international network of Arab-financed support groups became even more vital to the CIA, including the string of jihad offices that had been set up across America with the help of Saudi and American intelligence. To drum up support, the agency paved the way for veterans of the Afghan conflict to visit the centres and tell their inspirational war stories; in return, the centres collected millions of dollars for the rebels at a time when they needed it most.
There were jihad offices in Jersey City, Atlanta and Dallas, but the most important was the one in Brooklyn, called Alkifah – Arabic for ‘the struggle.’ That storefront became the de facto headquarters of the sheikh.
***
On November 5, 1990, Rabbi Meir Kahane, an ultra-right-wing Zionist militant, was shot in the throat with a .357 magnum in a Manhattan hotel; El-Sayyid Nosair was gunned down by an off-duty postal inspector outside the hotel, and the murder weapon was found a few feet from his hand.
A subsequent search of Nosair’s Cliffside Park, New Jersey home turned up forty boxes of evidence – evidence that, had the D.A.’s office and the FBI looked at it more carefully, would have revealed an active terrorist conspiracy about to boil over in New York.
***
In addition to discovering thousands of rounds of ammunition and hit lists with the names of New York judges and prosecutors, investigators found amongst the Nosair evidence classified U.S. military-training manuals.
***
Also found amongst Nosair’s effects were several documents, letters and notebooks in Arabic, which when eventually translated would point to e terror conspiracy against the United States. The D.A.’s office shipped these, along with the other evidence, to the FBI’s office at 26 Federal Plaza. ‘We gave all this stuff to the bureau, thinking that they were well equipped,’ says one source close to the D.A.’s office. ‘After the World Trade Centre, we discovered they never translated the material.’
According to other sources familiar with the case, the FBI told District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau that Nosair was a lone gunman, not part of a broader conspiracy; the prosecution took this position at trial and lost, only convicting Nosair of gun charges. Morgenthau speculated the CIA may have encouraged the FBI not to pursue any other leads, these sources say. ‘The FBI lied to me,’ Morgenthau has told colleagues. ‘They’re supposed to untangle terrorist connections, but they can’t be trusted to do the job.’
Three years later, on the day the FBI arrested four Arabs for the World Trade Centre bombing, saying it had all of the suspects, Morgenthau’s ears pricked up. He didn’t believe the four were ‘self-starters,’ and speculated that there was probably a larger network as well as a foreign sponsor. He also had a hunch that the suspects would lead back to Sheikh Abdel Rahman. But he worried that the dots might not be connected because the U.S. government was protecting the sheikh for his help in Afghanistan.
***
Nevertheless, some in the D.A.’s office believe that until the Ryder van exploded underneath New York’s tallest building, the sheikh and his men were being protected by the CIA. Morgenthau reportedly believes the CIA brought the sheikh to Brooklyn in the first place….
As far as can be determined, no American agency is investigating leads suggesting foreign-government involvement in the New York terror conspiracy. For example,Saudi intelligence has contributed to Sheikh Rahman’s legal-defence fund, according to Mohammed al-Khilewi, the former first secretary to the Saudi mission at the U.N.
Friedman notes that intelligence agents had possession of notes which should have linked all of these terrorists, but failed to connect the dots prior to 1993.
CNN ran a special report in 1994 called “Terror Nation? U.S. Creation? (http://tv.msn.com/tv/episode/cnn-presents/terror-nation-us-creation/)“, which noted – as summarized by Congressman Peter Deutsch (https://www.atsc.army.mil/crc/ISO6A10L/LessonPlan_TheCurrentThreatinAfghanistan.rtf):

Some Afghan groups that have had close affiliation with Pakistani Intelligence are believed to have been involved in the [1993] New York World Trade Center bombings.

***

Pro-Western afghan officials … officially warned the U.S. government about Hekmatyar no fewer than four times. The last warning delivered just days before the [1993] Trade Center attack.” Speaking to former CIA Director Robert Gates, about Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Peter Arnett reports, “The Pakistanis showered Gulbuddin Hekmatyar with U.S. provided weapons and sang his praises to the CIA. They had close ties with Hakmatyar going back to the mid-1970′s.”
This is interesting because it is widely-acknowledged that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was enthusiastically backed by the U.S. For example, U.S. News and World Report says (http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2008/07/11/afghan-warlords-formerly-backed-by-the-cia-now-turn-their-guns-on-us-troops):

[He was] once among America’s most valued allies. In the 1980s, the CIA funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons and ammunition to help them battle the Soviet Army during its occupation of Afghanistan. Hekmatyar, then widely considered by Washington to be a reliable anti-Soviet rebel, was even flown to the United States by the CIA in 1985.
As the New York Times (http://web.archive.org/web/20071212122812/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/access/116193080.html?did=116193080&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Oct+28,+1993&author=By+RALPH+BLUMENTHAL&pub=New+York+Times++%281857_Current+file%29&desc=Tapes+Depict+Proposal+to+Thwart+Bomb+Used+in+ Trade+Center+Blast), CBS News (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs&eurl) and others reported, an FBI informant involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center begged the FBI to substitute fake bomb power for real explosives, but his FBI handler somehow let real explosives be used.

Bosnia As professor of strategy at the Naval War College and former National Security Agency intelligence analyst and counterintelligence officer John R. Schindler documents, the U.S. supported Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda terrorists in Bosnia (http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Terror-Bosnia-Al-Qaida-Global/dp/product-description/0760330034)......


MORE AT LINK...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/sleeping-with-the-devil-how-u-s-and-saudi-backing-of-al-qaeda-led-to-911/5303313

gabosaurus
11-24-2014, 08:14 PM
This information has been known (and roundly ignored/hidden) for years. Along with Thatcher's financial support for the same cause.

Drummond
11-24-2014, 08:44 PM
I've no need to waste my time studying any of this c**p in any detail.

REALITY CHECK ... help was given to the MUJAHIDDEEN, to fight Soviet oppression, in Afghanistan. The Mujahiddeen was a different group to Al Qaeda .. Al Qaeda only came into existence in 1988.

No Western power made any attempt to aid Al Qaeda in any way. Why on earth would they ?? Al Qaeda - I stress, was an organisation which mutated out of the older Mujahiddeen - having different objectives.

Aiding freedom fighters resisting Soviet occupation, this was what helping the Mujahiddeen was all about. Aiding them, made sense. Considering what was understood about the Mujahiddeen, aiding them was a reasonable, even meritorious, thing to do.

Trust the Left, to - periodically - try to twist history, blurring distinctions, in order to erroneously muckrake .. WITHOUT ANY PROPER FOUNDATION FOR IT.

The Left have tried this before. I'm sure they'll try it again, after a suitable period has elapsed .. this is one of those 'wait for a very long time, then, only if a sufficiently long time has elapsed can we hope to invent a conspiracy theory that people might actually believe' .. sort of scenarios we get every so often.

Drummond
11-24-2014, 08:53 PM
This information has been known (and roundly ignored/hidden) for years. Along with Thatcher's financial support for the same cause.

No bias there, then !! :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

aboutime
11-24-2014, 09:30 PM
So now. Based on the endless rantings of rev. Does anyone still have any doubt how rev dislikes, and possibly, even hates America?

revelarts
11-24-2014, 09:36 PM
I've no need to waste my time studying any of this c**p in any detail....


That's part of your problem, you don't take time study in detail or maybe beyond your reassuring sources. And your bias seems so hardwired that you can't imagine you may not be right.

Not sure how you feel about Cromwell but there's a quote from him I was reminded of recently.

Oliver Cromwell
August 3, 1650 - Letter to the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

jimnyc
11-25-2014, 08:08 AM
Al Qaeda didn't exist in the 1970's, but it sounds better to claim that we somehow created a terrorist group back then. At least better than us creating legitimate fighters, who LATER turned into terrorists, perhaps about 20 years after that (guessing). Context helps. I'm not saying these folks were EVER good people. But there's a HUGE difference between helping and funding a group of people fighting our enemies, and funding and helping a terrorist group.

Imagine the USA funding and actively helping Al Qaeda today. Because that's basically what is being said here. Did it seemingly be a major fuckup and our help backfire on us and even be used against us down the road? Unfortunately, yes. But that is a big difference than somehow claiming we organized the group and such. And yes, that IS a big difference. Helping the enemy of your enemy is something every country has done at one time or another.

My city hired a police officer, trained him and gave him a weapon. He ultimately "lost it" and shot his wife and family. That somehow means that the city created this monster AND helped him with these murders. Odd.

fj1200
11-25-2014, 08:37 AM
We Created Al Qaeda to Fight the Soviets in Afghanistan

Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-17/brzezinski1.html) on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of “Al Qaeda” in the 1970s (http://www.thenation.com/article/blowback-prequel) to fight the Soviets.
Brzezinski told Al Qaeda’s forefathers – the Mujahadin:
We know of their deep belief in god – that they’re confident that their struggle will succeed. – That land over-there is yours – and you’ll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and god is on your side.


CIA director and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates confirmed (http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Ultimate-Insiders-Story-Presidents/dp/0684834979/sr=8-1/qid=1163059092/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8219747-6907339?ie=UTF8&s=books) in his memoir that the U.S. backed the Mujahadin in the 1970s.

I'm going to have to call BS on at least some of what was presented. I checked the Brzezinski links and nowhere is the Taliban or AQ mentioned. The basis for the comments seems to be the presumption that Mujahadeen = Taliban = Al Qaeda; which doesn't seem to be true.


However, the mujahideen did not establish a united government, and many of the larger mujahideen groups began to fight each other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Afghanistan_(1992%E2%80%931996)) over power in Kabul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabul). After several years of devastating fighting, a village mullah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullah) named Mohammed Omar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Omar) organized a new armed movement with the backing of Pakistan. This movement became known as the Taliban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban)("students" in Pashto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashto_language)), referring to the Saudi-backed religious schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrassas_in_Pakistan) known for producing extremism. Veteran mujahideen confronted this radical splinter group in 1996.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

That the US backed the Mujahideen is not in question.

revelarts
11-25-2014, 08:45 AM
Al Qaeda didn't exist in the 1970's, but it sounds better to claim that we somehow created a terrorist group back then. At least better than us creating legitimate fighters, who LATER turned into terrorists, perhaps about 20 years after that (guessing). Context helps. I'm not saying these folks were EVER good people. But there's a HUGE difference between helping and funding a group of people fighting our enemies, and funding and helping a terrorist group.

Imagine the USA funding and actively helping Al Qaeda today. Because that's basically what is being said here. Did it seemingly be a major fuckup and our help backfire on us and even be used against us down the road? Unfortunately, yes. But that is a big difference than somehow claiming we organized the group and such. And yes, that IS a big difference. Helping the enemy of your enemy is something every country has done at one time or another.

My city hired a police officer, trained him and gave him a weapon. He ultimately "lost it" and shot his wife and family. That somehow means that the city created this monster AND helped him with these murders. Odd.

If your city hired guys known to have deep ideological problem with city gov't authority in general, but decide to train them to "fight crime" anyway. Should they be SHOCKED that those guys turn the guns and training on back on the city and it's residents that trained and armed them.

That's a closer analogy than some cop that just goes off the rails. One's an emotional break, the other is a belief system and part of the primary motivation to get the training in the 1st place.
The "mistake" is easy to see from the outset. But was ignored because of what they believed was pragmatic at the time.

the same mistake is going on now and is barely being held back, some do want to fund Alqaeda in Syria against Asad, and we did support Alqeada in Libya. We just don't want to do it OVERTLY because of the connotations. But we know that arms and training has been given to those that don't like the U.S.. who call themselves "moderates" and for some reason end up crossing over to AlNusra and Isis.

I've posted info before about our training camps in Jordan for "freedom fighters". And how Saudi and other M.E. countries have supported alqeada and Alnusra and Isis. (not to mention the saudi 911 connection)
It's disingenuous to think that the CIA and the military on the ground doing the training don't understand the type of people they training are not really going to help you in the long run. and they KNOW some of them may have been shooting at U.S. troops in Afghanistan or Iraq just years or months ago.

Saying people do the enemy of my enemy thing all the time doesn't make it GOOD policy.
By now we should have learn our lesson and not make excuses for it.

jimnyc
11-25-2014, 08:49 AM
If your city hired guys known to have deep ideological problem with city gov't authority in general, but decide to train them to "fight crime" anyway. Should they be SHOCKED that those guys turn the guns and training on back on the city and it's residents that trained and armed them.

That's a closer analogy than some cop that just goes off the rails. One's an emotional break, the other is a belief system and part of the primary motivation to get the training in the 1st place.
The "mistake" is easy to see from the outset. But was ignored because of what they believed was pragmatic at the time.

the same mistake is going on now and is barely being held back, some do want to fund Alqaeda in Syria against Asad, and we did support Alqeada in Libya. We just don't want to do it OVERTLY because of the connotations. But we know that arms and training has been given to those that don't like the U.S.. who call themselves "moderates" and for some reason end up crossing over to AlNusra and Isis.

I've posted info before about our training camps in Jordan for "freedom fighters". And how Saudi and other M.E. countries have supported alqeada and Alnusra and Isis. (not to mention the saudi 911 connection)
It's disingenuous to think that the CIA and the military on the ground doing the training don't understand the type of people they training are not really going to help you in the long run. and they KNOW some of them may have been shooting at U.S. troops in Afghanistan or Iraq just years or months ago.

Saying people do the enemy of my enemy thing all the time doesn't make it GOOD policy.
By now we should have learn our lesson and not make excuses for it.

Never said it was some good policy, but it does work and it's far from unheard of, and isn't necessarily bad policy either.

Should they be "shocked"? Probably not. But that still doesn't mean we built Al Qaeda, they did that themselves. Nor did we fund them directly back then, as they didn't exist. My only point is that there is a big difference between funding/helping shitheads that later turned to terrorism - as opposed to outright funding/helping an organization that is 'currently' a terrorist organization. The first is a mistake, however bad, while the 2nd would be a crime. There is a mammoth difference between the two.

Drummond
11-25-2014, 08:56 AM
That's part of your problem, you don't take time study in detail or maybe beyond your reassuring sources. And your bias seems so hardwired that you can't imagine you may not be right.

Not sure how you feel about Cromwell but there's a quote from him I was reminded of recently.

Oliver Cromwell
August 3, 1650 - Letter to the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

But -- facts are facts. Defying your material is the simple, hard fact, that Al Qaeda did not exist AT ALL until the late '80's. Its 'predecessor' (to the extent it even qualified as one) existed for a different purpose, had different objectives.

One might as well conclude that cheese manufacturers should be the prime funders for any future Moon landings, because someone once linked cheese to the Moon ...

The Mujahiddeen was one 'organisation'. The Taliban, another. The Taliban played host to Al Qaeda, in Afghanistan, allowing them the use of Afghan territory ... because Al Qaeda was yet ANOTHER organisation.

None of this is bias, Revelarts, but FACT. If you are inclined to reject this for any reason, to indulge in reasonings which don't address this truth, it is YOUR BIAS THAT'S RESPONSIBLE.

I therefore ask: what is the purpose of that bias ?

revelarts
11-25-2014, 09:10 AM
I'm going to have to call BS on at least some of what was presented. I checked the Brzezinski links and nowhere is the Taliban or AQ mentioned. The basis for the comments seems to be the presumption that Mujahadeen = Taliban = Al Qaeda; which doesn't seem to be true.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

That the US backed the Mujahideen is not in question.
I think you do a disservice to the info if you characterize it the way you do.
it's not saying
"Mujahadeen = Taliban = Al Qaeda"
It's saying that
1st that the CIA and the state dept with the ISI in Pakistan, recruited and CULTIVATED and funded the most radial muslims.
helping promo the schools that foster the worse muslim terrorist ideology in the schools and among the fighters. They wanted THEM because they found them more "reliable" against the USSR.
From those roots you get
Mujahadeen --- Taliban ---- Al Qaeda
and at various level you have many of the SAME people in and out of those groups.
All groomed, trained and funded by CIA.

the CIA didn't train moderates fighter to protect their homes but the WORSE kind of outta town religious nuts fighting for a Muslim Great Global Jihad.


"the 9/11 Commission report (PDF) (http://www.cfr.org/publication/10353/) released in 2004 said some of Pakistan’s religious schools or madrassas served as “incubators for violent extremism.” Since then, there has been much debate over madrassas and their connection to militancy.
***...New madrassas sprouted, funded and supported by Saudi Arabia and U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, where students were encouraged to join the Afghan resistance."
It mentions CIA payin the Blind Shiek to preach violent Jihad. etc etc.

the point is PRE-widespread Muslim terror we promoted, funded, trained and armed the crazy Muslims thinking and leaders many are so concerning about today.

And that it was not a good idea, even then.

fj1200
11-25-2014, 09:26 AM
I think you do a disservice to the info if you characterize it the way you do.
it's not saying
"Mujahadeen = Taliban = Al Qaeda"
It's saying that
1st that the CIA and the state dept with the ISI in Pakistan, recruited and CULTIVATED and funded the most radial muslims.
helping promo the schools that foster the worse muslim terrorist ideology in the schools and among the fighters. They wanted THEM because they found them more "reliable" against the USSR.
From those roots you get
Mujahadeen --- Taliban ---- Al Qaeda
and at various level you have many of the SAME people in and out of those groups.
All groomed, trained and funded by CIA.

the CIA didn't train moderates fighter to protect their homes but the WORSE kind of outta town religious nuts fighting for a Muslim Great Global Jihad.


"the 9/11 Commission report (PDF) (http://www.cfr.org/publication/10353/) released in 2004 said some of Pakistan’s religious schools or madrassas served as “incubators for violent extremism.” Since then, there has been much debate over madrassas and their connection to militancy.
***...New madrassas sprouted, funded and supported by Saudi Arabia and U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, where students were encouraged to join the Afghan resistance."
It mentions CIA payin the Blind Shiek to preach violent Jihad. etc etc.

the point is PRE-widespread Muslim terror we promoted, funded, trained and armed the crazy Muslims thinking and leaders many are so concerning about today.

And that it was not a good idea, even then.

That is the way it's presented so it's not my characterization:


We Created Al Qaeda to Fight the Soviets in Afghanistan

That is patently false. Was the CIA doing all sorts of stuff to fight the Soviets? No question but it shouldn't be hard to draw the actual lines without creating new ones. And AFAIK the Mujahideen preexisted our involvement.



But you may now carry on with your agenda-driven leftie-ism. ;) :poke:

Drummond
11-25-2014, 10:34 AM
I'm - astonishingly - agreeing with FJ on this one (!!!!!!!!!!).

Revelarts, the logic of your position is that the US authorities were required to exercise clairvoyance before committing any assistance to any group.

Convince us all that the US actually KNEW that Al Qaeda would be eventually formed, and do what it does, at the very beginning of the help-consideration process for its predecessors. Because if you can't, then you're attempting to wallop your own country for developments it neither COULD have known of, nor ever planned for.

Revelarts, this goes the way of conspiracy theories which are only purposely introduced after a very considerable time has elapsed ... because if they're disseminated when events are 'current', they'd readily be rejected as bogus pretty much automatically.

revelarts
11-25-2014, 11:46 AM
That is the way it's presented so it's not my characterization:



That is patently false. Was the CIA doing all sorts of stuff to fight the Soviets? No question but it shouldn't be hard to draw the actual lines without creating new ones. And AFAIK the Mujahideen preexisted our involvement.



But you may now carry on with your agenda-driven leftie-ism. ;) :poke:

I have to admit that the words Alqeada, were probably not used. And that Mujahideen may have preexisted U.S involvement.
however the point is somewhat semantic.

if I were to say that I supported the United State when i Supported George washington's , and the VA militia. paid Patrick henery to have time to write the give me liberty speach. printed copies of Common Sense, Distributed newpapers that called for revolution, and asked for men to jion the army. and spent money on muskets and shot for the army. asked the french to do the same.

one could say THERE WAS NO UNITED STATES when i gave all that support for the ideology and revolution that created the country.
and you'd be right. there was No United States.

But it'd be factual wrong to says that it the U.S. gov't was just an accident that i had NO real part of creating even if aspects of it weren't what i had hoped for.

Pouring money into the support of radical education of the REVOLUTIONARY IDEAS and TRAINING the radicals in the various PRE-alqeada forms is in a very practical sense CREATING Alqeada it seems to me.

Is it from WHOLE CLOTH, no not even close. but would it be what it is without our systematic support in various areas. not even close.

IF we want to imagine that we had ZERO to do with creating the people and movement that make up Alqeada>Al nusra> Isis> Isil, that's fine. but it's not really honest either.
the names may have changed but the ideology and people are those we promoted, trained, armed, and funded.

just because they put a different label on it and rearrange the players every 9 months doesn't make it "new"
.

"As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar – the MAK – which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation."


But sure , again your right, the headline and sub headlines are misleading.
But the content tells the story pretty clearly of where responsibility falls.

fj1200
11-25-2014, 01:46 PM
I have to admit that the words Alqeada, were probably not used. And that Mujahideen may have preexisted U.S involvement.
however the point is somewhat semantic.

if I were to say that I supported the United State when i Supported George washington's , and the VA militia. paid Patrick henery to have time to write the give me liberty speach. printed copies of Common Sense, Distributed newpapers that called for revolution, and asked for men to jion the army. and spent money on muskets and shot for the army. asked the french to do the same.

one could say THERE WAS NO UNITED STATES when i gave all that support for the ideology and revolution that created the country.
and you'd be right. there was No United States.

But it'd be factual wrong to says that it the U.S. gov't was just an accident that i had NO real part of creating even if aspects of it weren't what i had hoped for.

Pouring money into the support of radical education of the REVOLUTIONARY IDEAS and TRAINING the radicals in the various PRE-alqeada forms is in a very practical sense CREATING Alqeada it seems to me.

Is it from WHOLE CLOTH, no not even close. but would it be what it is without our systematic support in various areas. not even close.

IF we want to imagine that we had ZERO to do with creating the people and movement that make up Alqeada>Al nusra> Isis> Isil, that's fine. but it's not really honest either.
the names may have changed but the ideology and people are those we promoted, trained, armed, and funded.

just because they put a different label on it and rearrange the players every 9 months doesn't make it "new".
...
But sure , again your right, the headline and sub headlines are misleading.
But the content tells the story pretty clearly of where responsibility falls.

AQ and Taliban couldn't have been used because they didn't exist at that time. Some of what I read on other sites is not just misleading it's downright wrong when they state the change from one to the other. And just because some things correlated it doesn't prove causation. We certainly didn't create Islamic Fundamentalism but I won't really argue that it wasn't used by the CIA.

What you're asking us to believe is because you might have supported a US in its infancy that you were the cause of the US; those are two very different things.

revelarts
11-25-2014, 05:44 PM
AQ and Taliban couldn't have been used because they didn't exist at that time. Some of what I read on other sites is not just misleading it's downright wrong when they state the change from one to the other. And just because some things correlated it doesn't prove causation. We certainly didn't create Islamic Fundamentalism but I won't really argue that it wasn't used by the CIA.

What you're asking us to believe is because you might have supported a US in its infancy that you were the cause of the US; those are two very different things.

Finding a mad a dog as a teen feeding it regularly, training it to kill, grooming it for years someone might have to right to say it's sorta your crazy dog.

Drummond
11-25-2014, 05:58 PM
Finding a mad a dog as a teen feeding it regularly, training it to kill, grooming it for years someone might have to right to say it's sorta your crazy dog.

Unfortunately for your argument, though, the dog has to exist in the first place !!

First, the Mujahiddeen. Ultimately, after quite a number of years goes by, a DIFFERENT entity forms, called Al Qaeda. Its aims are different, IT is different. Since that's simple fact, your argument, I'm afraid, is going precisely nowhere, regardless of your efforts to hype it up.

What's the title of this thread ? 'How U.S and Saudi Arabia Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11'. But, Revelarts, Al Qaeda didn't even EXIST until 1988. And the US, for one, definitely did NOT 'back' them at any time.

There is no reason to buy into any fantasy that alleges otherwise ... especially since that fantasy is only NOW being pushed, today, in the year 2014 !! Yes, that's THIRTEEN YEARS AFTER 9/11 !

aboutime
11-25-2014, 06:28 PM
Unfortunately for your argument, though, the dog has to exist in the first place !!

First, the Mujahiddeen. Ultimately, after quite a number of years goes by, a DIFFERENT entity forms, called Al Qaeda. Its aims are different, IT is different. Since that's simple fact, your argument, I'm afraid, is going precisely nowhere, regardless of your efforts to hype it up.

What's the title of this thread ? 'How U.S and Saudi Arabia Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11'. But, Revelarts, Al Qaeda didn't even EXIST until 1988. And the US, for one, definitely did NOT 'back' them at any time.

There is no reason to buy into any fantasy that alleges otherwise ... especially since that fantasy is only NOW being pushed, today, in the year 2014 !! Yes, that's THIRTEEN YEARS AFTER 9/11 !


Sir Drummond. Another case of wasting our time. Reading rev's continued rants here; ONLY SERVES to Impress rev. He is so full of himself, and impressed with what he obviously believes is an Obama-like knack, for double-speak with rhetoric.
So. We should just leave rev alone in his self-generated, back-slapping glory of misery that nobody cares about.

revelarts
11-26-2014, 07:56 AM
Sir Drummond. Another case of wasting our time. Reading rev's continued rants here; ONLY SERVES to Impress rev. He is so full of himself, and impressed with what he obviously believes is an Obama-like knack, for double-speak with rhetoric.
So. We should just leave rev alone in his self-generated, back-slapping glory of misery that nobody cares about.

And here we are again, you come in behind and make some lame personal comments. But make ZERO comment on the content of the post. hellooo, the U.S. and Saudi govt funding training arming the worse Islamic terrorist beginning the 1980s AT, that's the topic here.
No, you're more upset with me and my so-called reasons for bringing it up.
what the heck?

u should take a look in the mirror AT.
why do you feel compelled to do that? following me and a few others people around the board with lame and petty personal jabs outta the blue?
If you've got something to say about the content say it. Otherwise you probably should keep your lil' comments about folks to yourself.
Your not giving people any insight into others but frankly you are saying something about yourself.

Drummond
11-26-2014, 08:19 AM
Sir Drummond. Another case of wasting our time. Reading rev's continued rants here; ONLY SERVES to Impress rev. He is so full of himself, and impressed with what he obviously believes is an Obama-like knack, for double-speak with rhetoric.
So. We should just leave rev alone in his self-generated, back-slapping glory of misery that nobody cares about.

Here, we have a Leftie acting in the service of a self-serving agenda. So you're essentially correct, in my view.

No doubt we'll see future manifestations of pro-Leftie conspiracy theories, all of which will have a highly dubious (at absolute best) acquaintanceship with reality. And they'll all doubtless share one thing in common, because of course they MUST .. a hefty time period will be involved between the origin-point of the matter in question, and the allegations / claims made.

Conspiracy theories depend on things being, shall we say, 'fuzzy' enough in the recipient's worldview for such theories to ever gain traction. Be it the memory of the event(s) concerned, or the reliability of past source material .. whatever takes away from the REALITIES involved. In this case, we're dealing with a typically convenient time gap of well over a decade (if timed from 9/11) or, getting on for THREE decades (if dated from the 1980's).

- 'Amazing' - that ......

fj1200
11-26-2014, 08:34 AM
Finding a mad a dog as a teen feeding it regularly, training it to kill, grooming it for years someone might have to right to say it's sorta your crazy dog.

You might have a point, feeding, training, and grooming 'stupid' only enables 'stupid' to continue. Case in point.


So you're essentially correct, in my view.

:rolleyes: