Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban(ABC)

[White_Male_Canada]

NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the United States and Great Britain.

"It is inconceivable that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that's doing it," said former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stopped short earlier this week of blaming Iran, saying the U.S. did not have evidence "of the involvement of the Iranian government in support of the Taliban."

But an analysis by a senior coalition official, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, concludes there is clear evidence of Iran's involvement.

"This is part of a considered policy," says the analysis, "rather than the result of low-level corruption and weapons smuggling."

Iran and the Taliban had been fierce enemies when the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan, and their apparent collaboration came as a surprise to some in the intelligence community.

"I think their goal is to make it very clear that Iran has the capability to make life worse for the United States on a variety of fronts," said Seth Jones of the Rand Institute, "even if they have to do some business with a group that has historically been their enemy."

The coalition analysis says munitions recovered in two Iranian convoys, on April 11 and May 3, had "clear indications that they originated in Iran. Some were identical to Iranian supplied goods previously discovered in Iraq."

The April convoy was tracked from Iran into Helmand province and led a fierce firefight that destroyed one vehicle, according to the official analysis. A second vehicle was reportedly found to contain small arms ammunition, mortar rounds and more than 650 pounds of C4 demolition charges.

A second convoy of two vehicles was spotted on May 3 and led to the capture of five occupants and the seizure of RPG-7mm rockets and more than 1,000 pounds of C4, the analysis says.

Also among the munitions are components for the lethal EFPs, or explosive formed projectiles, the roadside bombs that U.S. officials say Iran has provided to Iraqi insurgents with deadly results.

"These clearly have the hallmarks of the Iranian Revolution Guards' Quds force," said Jones.

The coalition diplomatic message says the demolition charges "contained the same fake U.S. markings found on explosives recovered from insurgents operating in the Baghdad area."

"We believe these intercepted munitions are part of a much bigger flow of support from Iran to the Taliban," the message says.

The Taliban receives larger supplies of weapons through profits from opium dealing, officials say, but the Iranian presence could be significant.

"It means the insurgency in Afghanistan is likely to be prolonged," said Jones. "It would be a much more potent force."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.html

[tsmandy]

Since automatically we can ignore the 2 decades of military and financial support we provided to the Taliban (since we are always good, just and right), and since we can ignore the dubious nature of quoting "analysis by a senior coalition official", shall we conclude that it is time to invade Iran?

More troubling, should we ask what on earth could possibly unite sworn enemies (you know fundamentalists are supposed to be completely unreasonable and unwilling to compromise when it comes to the true faith) in such a short period of time.

Or....why is it wrong for Iran to support Shia insurgents in Iraq, and right for the United States to support Sunni insurgents in Lebanon?

Oops, I forgot, reasonable questions of intent can be dismissed out of hand as "socialist propaganda" even when put forth by the United Nations, The World Court, The International Red Cross, basically the entire planet. Because "what we say goes".

[tsmandy]

Rather than just repost mindless propaganda, I thought some actual reporting on the issue might be nice for a change. This article was listed from Asia Times online, a great source for information on international events.

Iran forces the issue in Afghanistan
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

ISLAM QALA, Iran-Afghanistan border - When Iran announced in February that it was undertaking a thorough regularization of aliens on its soil, ears in the West pricked up, but not much was read into it.

However, the subsequent expulsion of thousands of Afghan refugees indicates the twofold motive behind the move. First, Iran wanted to weaken Sunni-led insurgents in its bordering areas, and second, it believed that the return of the refugees would fuel the

Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan.

The second calculation, compounded by a political miscalculation on the part of the Afghan government, has already borne fruit, in the process providing the United States with another area on which it needs to consult Tehran.

On April 23, Iran sent back 4,000 undocumented Afghans to Zaranj, Nimroz province, followed the next day by the same number. All of them had been living in the Iranian Sunni-dominated Zabol-Zahedan region of Sistan-Balochistan province and had originally hailed from Nimroz and Farah provinces. An estimated 1 million Afghan refugees live in Iran.

According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, up to the beginning of this month, 98,712 persons had been deported since April 23 - the largest number ever send back from Iran in such a short period. Almost all of them were sent from the Zaranj border crossing. They were said to have refused to comply with a decision by the Iranian government to declare the Zabol-Zahedan area a "no-go" zone for "foreigners".

In fact, observers claim that Tehran wants to clear all people, local or foreign, from the Sunni-dominated area to minimize the chances of insurgents securing safe sanctuaries in the remote regions of Zahedan and Zabol.

Zahedan has traditionally been the base of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK - People's Mujahideen), which has conducted terror acts in Iran. And recently an organization called Jundallah emerged from the area to carry out terrorist activities against Iranian security forces.

Jundallah is a hardline Sunni Islamist group drawn from the Baloch population of Iran, as well as Balochs from Pakistan (Balochistan province) and Afghanistan (Farah and Nimroz provinces).

Zabol's vastness has served as a safe haven for the Taliban, as the local population is sympathetic to them. One of Osama bin Laden's sons, Saad, was arrested from Zabol by Iranian authorities. This was never officially announced, and some reports say he was released last July.

According to field officers of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, although they made every effort to stem the flood of refugees, they have had little success and they are struggling to cope with the numbers. About 1,300 a day are still streaming across the border, most of them headed for their home provinces of Farah and Nimroz.

The situation is a serious concern for Kabul as well as its international supporters. The province of Farah, in western Afghanistan near Herat province, was virtually in the hands of the Taliban until last November, but constant operations by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Afghan forces forced the Taliban back. Nevertheless, in the ongoing spring offensive, the Taliban are re-establishing their influence.

After a surge in attacks since last month, the Herat-Farah highway has been declared insecure and officials of international agencies are banned from traveling on it - they have to use NATO or UN air services.

"The most alarming thing is the gradual increase in the activities of the Taliban in Farah and Nimroz and the return of the Afghan refugees. They are poor and needy and naturally will fuel the Taliban insurgency," a senior official of an international agency told Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity.

However, other factors will help make western Afghanistan a new hub of Taliban activities this year. Sayed Hussain Anwari, a Shi'ite ethnic Hazara, was installed as governor of Herat this year in the predominantly Tajik-Sunni province.

Anwari is a bitter rival of a legendary Afghan commander of the resistance against the Soviets in the 1980s, Ismail Khan, and Anwari's appointment by Kabul was an open declaration of war against Khan and his formidable support. Khan was sacked as governor in September 2004. As a conciliatory gesture, President Hamid Karzai appointed him minister of energy.

The consequences of sidelining the powerful Khan are being manifested in the re-emergence of the Taliban in the northwestern provinces of Herat (Shindand), Farah, Nimroz and Ghor through the facilitation of local warlords, many of them Khan supporters.

To date, Iranian diplomacy has been effective in keeping the US war machine at bay in the Persian Gulf and even compelled the Americans to open dialogue with Iran over its role in Iraq and the region. Northwestern Afghanistan is the latest front on which the Americans need to make a bargain with Tehran.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com.

[qeuqheeg222]

who was sneekin weapons across the north korean border in that war..who was givin the north vietnamese weapons and pilots?..did we ever use this as a pre-emptive justification to bomb the hell out of russia and china?plus just who gave the taliban all them rocket launchers in the 1980's-big daddy reagan--

[guyone]

It is socialist propaganda when you start mixing and matching information to suit your needs. The US never supported the Taliban who before 1994 were a small splinter group of the mujahideen. The US through back channels supported and armed various mujahidden factions including one of the greatest men to have ever lived, Ahmad Shah Massoud.

[White_Male_Canada]

It is socialist propaganda when you start mixing and matching information to suit your needs. The US never supported the Taliban who before 1994 were a small splinter group of the mujahideen. The US through back channels supported and armed various mujahidden factions including one of the greatest men to have ever lived, Ahmad Shah Massoud.

BULLSEYE !

I get tired of pointing out the FACTS to the radical left. The US never helped OBL. period.

That and their laughable ' moral equivalency ' argument. 8)

[North_of_60]

The US policy in Afghanistan did create Bin Laden.
The first contact between Bin Laden and the CIA are from 1979 in Istanbul.
Two months before 9/11 a CIA agent met with Bin Laden in Dubaï.

[White_Male_Canada]

USINFO > Resource Tools > Identifying Misinformation


Did the U.S. "Create" Osama bin Laden?

Allegations that the U.S. provided funding for bin Laden proved inaccurate


The United States did not "create" Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda. The United States supported the Afghans fighting for their country's freedom -- as did other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK -- but the United States did not support the "Afghan Arabs," the Arabs and other Muslims who came to fight in Afghanistan for broader goals. CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen notes that the "Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding." He notes:

"While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.

Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. Freelance cameraman Peter Jouvenal recalls: "There was no love lost between the Afghans and the Arabs. One Afghan told me, ‘Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them. They thought they were kings.'"

... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]


Al Qaeda's number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, confirmed that the "Afghan Arabs" did not receive any U.S. funding during the war in Afghanistan. In the book that was described as his last will, Knights Under the Prophet's Banner, which was serialized in December 2001 in Al-Sharq al-Awsat, al-Zawahiri says the Afghan Arabs were funded with money from Arab sources, which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars:

"While the United States backed Pakistan and the mujahidin factions with money and equipment, the young Arab mujahidin's relationship with the United States was totally different."

"... The financing of the activities of the Arab mujahidin in Afghanistan came from aid sent to Afghanistan by popular organizations. It was substantial aid."

"The Arab mujahidin did not confine themselves to financing their own jihad but also carried Muslim donations to the Afghan mujahidin themselves. Usama Bin Ladin has apprised me of the size of the popular Arab support for the Afghan mujahidin that amounted, according to his sources, to $200 million in the form of military aid alone in 10 years. Imagine how much aid was sent by popular Arab organizations in the non-military fields such as medicine and health, education and vocational training, food, and social assistance ...."

"Through the unofficial popular support, the Arab mujahidin established training centers and centers for the call to the faith. They formed fronts that trained and equipped thousands of Arab mujahidin and provided them with living expenses, housing, travel and organization." (Al-Sharq al-Awsat, December 3, 2001, Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), GMP20011202000401)


Abdullah Anas, an Algerian who was one of the foremost Afghan Arab organizers and the son-in-law of Abdullah Azzam, has also confirmed that the CIA had no relationship with the Afghan Arabs. Speaking on the French television program Zone Interdit on September 12, 2004, Anas stated:

"If you say there was a relationship in the sense that the CIA used to meet with Arabs, discuss with them, prepare plans with them, and to fight with them -- it never happened."


Milt Bearden served as the CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, where he was in charge of running the covert action program for Afghanistan. In his memoirs titled "The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the CIA's Final Showdown with the KGB," Bearden says the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK were "major players" in the effort to aid the Afghans. Bearden writes:

"[President Jimmy] Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, had in 1980 secured an agreement from the Saudi king to match American contributions to the Afghan effort dollar for dollar, and [Reagan administration CIA director] Bill Casey kept that agreement going over the years." (The Main Enemy, p. 219)


From 1983 to 1987, Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf was in charge of the Afghan Bureau of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which ran Pakistan's covert program to aid the Afghan mujahidin. In his book The Bear Trap: Afghanistan's Untold Story, Brigadier Yousaf confirms the matching U.S.-Saudi arrangement, stating:

"For every dollar supplied by the US, another was added by the Saudi Arabian government. The combined funds, running into several hundred million dollars a year, were transferred by the CIA to special accounts in Pakistan under the control of the ISI." (The Bear Trap, p. 81)


Bearden makes it clear that the CIA covert action program did not fund any Arabs or other Muslims to come to the jihad:

"Contrary to what people have come to imagine, the CIA never recruited, trained, or otherwise used Arab volunteers. The Afghans were more than happy to do their own fighting -- we saw no reason not to satisfy them on this point." (The Main Enemy, p. 243)


Marc Sageman worked closely with the Afghan mujahideen as one of Milt Bearden's case officers, from 1987 to 1989. In his book, Understanding Terror Networks, he writes:

"No U.S. official ever came in contact with the foreign volunteers. They simply traveled in different circles and never crossed U.S. radar screens. They had their own sources of money and their own contacts with the Pakistanis, official Saudis, and other Muslim supporters, and they made their own deals with the various Afghan resistance leaders. Their presence in Afghanistan was very small and they did not participate in any significant fighting." (Understanding Terror Networks, pp. 57-58.)


The Central Intelligence Agency has issued a statement categorically denying that it ever had any relationship with Osama bin Laden. It stated, in response to the hypothetical question "Has the CIA ever provided funding, training, or other support to Usama Bin Laden?":

"No. Numerous comments in the media recently have reiterated a widely circulated but incorrect notion that the CIA once had a relationship with Usama Bin Laden. For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with Bin Laden (emphasis in original)."


In summary:

• U.S. covert aid went to the Afghans, not to the "Afghan Arabs."

• The "Afghan Arabs" were funded by Arab sources, not by the United States.

• United States never had "any relationship whatsoever" with Osama bin Laden.

• The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Arab backing for the "Afghan Arabs," and bin Laden's own decisions "created" Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, not the United States.






Created: 14 Jan 2005 Updated: 14 Jan 2005

[North_of_60]

I can quote.
Here we go...

=======================================
Osama bin Laden: Made in USA
by Jared Israel
[Written 28 August 1998. Posted 13 September 2001]
=======================================

[The following is an excerpt from 'Credible Deception,' a study of the 'N.Y. Times' coverage of the U.S. missile attacks on Afghanistan and a pill factory in Sudan, in August, 1998. The entire text can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/sudan.html - Jared Israel]

Most of us never heard of Osama bin Laden before last August 21st but by saying he was "the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today," President Clinton conjured up images of rage and random mayhem that seemed to justify swift, strong action.

We were told the main target of the missile attack was not just bin Laden, but: "...terrorist facilities and infrastructure in Afghanistan. Our forces targeted one of the most active terrorist bases in the world...a training camp for literally thousands of terrorists from around the globe." (NY Times, 8/21/98, p. a12. )

This theme - that there is a terrorist organization which links the terrorist base in Afghanistan with a terrorist factory in Sudan - is repeated throughout the August 21st NY Times.

The Afghan "terrorist base" is of course Clinton's strong suit. A "terrorist base" is a place where terrorists prepare for war; a "terrorist base" is fair game. Factories, on the other hand, are a problem. Americans are squeamish about bombing factories and burning the skin off the workers' backs. The trick is: link the base to the factory.

Here's the argument: terrorists, financed by the rich Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the Embassy bombings, built a complex of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. The U.S., arch-enemy of terror, rolled up its sleeves and destroyed these training camps and a bin Laden-owned factory in Sudan as well. The U.S. has thereby sent a message to terrorists around the globe. They can read our missiles. They will be hunted down and destroyed without mercy. The U.S. is on the job.

But wait. What if the training camps were falsely portrayed? What if they had been built by the U.S. government? What if bin Laden and his associates were in fact old CIA hands?

It would be a bit awkward, wouldn't it?

If this was true, and if the Times knew it was true on August 21st, wouldn't the Times' failure to print this information on page one constitute a profound betrayal of trust?

BUT THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW...

The complex the U.S. attacked on August 20th is located near the Pakistani border:

''The camps, hidden in the steep mountains and mile-deep valleys of Paktia province, were the place where all seven ranking Afghan resistance leaders maintained underground headquarters and clandestine weapons stocks during their bitter and ultimately successful war against Soviet troops from Dec. 1979 to February 1989, according to American intelligence veterans…The Afghan resistance was backed by the intelligence services of the United States and Saudi Arabia...[and this camp represents] ‘the last word in NATO engineering techniques.’" (NY Times, 8/24/98, p.A1 & A7. )

And the "resistance fighters" whom the U.S. backed in the Afghan war during the 80s?

"Some of the same warriors who fought the Soviets with the CIA’s help are now fighting under Mr. bin Laden’s banner." (ibid., p.A1)

So. These people, whom the U.S. government calls the worst terrorists in the world, were set up in the business by the U.S. government. And the Times knew this on August 21st when it devoted many articles to covering the missile attacks. The Times management chose to withhold this critical information from the public.

The August 24th article quoted above unwittingly betrays the method by which the U.S. government's sponsorship of bin Laden is justified. When the U.S. openly supported bin Laden and friends, they were give a label ("resistance fighters") so they were ok. Now they have been given a new label ("terrorists") and thus they are transformed. The U.S. government is absolved of guilt because the people it supported in the past weren't these terrorists it is bombing today, they were those resistance fighters. Amazing.

'"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean— neither more nor less.'" (Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, ch. 6.)
Once renamed, these people, or anything or anyone the U.S. government accuses of being linked to these people, can be bombed. No need for UN discussion, no need for proof, no need for nothing: the U.S. is covert investigator, unyielding judge, impartial jury and invincible executioner, all sanctified by the struggle against "terrorism."

Will bin Laden have his label changed back to "resistance fighter" when the U.S. government once more requires his services?

This may sound preposterous. But consider that the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) has made just such a transformation - in fact the KLA people have not just gone from terrorists to freedom fighters, they have gone from terrorists/drug dealers all the way up to Nation Builders. And incidentally, it is widely reported that Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists have helped train and fought with the KLA. These KLA-helpers apparently include Osama bin Laden's associates. So perhaps bin Laden has been rehabilitated and re-transformed (!) already. [See footnote A]

IT'S THE MONEY, STUPID

But is emperors-clothes.com being fair? Was the U.S. government in actual partnership with bin Laden and other "resistance fighters" during the Afghan war? Or was it just giving these guys a little support against a common (Russian) foe?

Since the U.S. side of the relationship with bin Laden and friends was handled by CIA, much of what took place is unknown. But we do know about one very important thing: money.

How much money do you think the US and Saudi Arabia gave the "resistance fighters?" I asked several people this question.

One guessed "a few hundred thousand dollars."

Another thought this was way to low. She guessed "$10-15 million."

The highest guess: $20 million.

The correct answer is: More than 6 billion dollars. (ibid.)

That's in 1980s money. And that’s just what they admit publicly. Remember, the paymasters were the CIA and Saudi Arabian Intelligence, so the real figure could be twice as high, or higher. The sky's the limit...

MS. ALBRIGHT REFLECTS ON TERROR

Speaking in Kenya on Aug. 18, 1998, Madeline Albright said:

'"Mr. bin Laden’s activities are inimical to those of [sic!] civilized people in the world and in the U.S. And whatever the connection to this, [the Embassy bombings,] I have said previously that his funding of terrorism is something the world is quite aware of.'" (Times, 8/19, P.A4. Our italics; her mangled sentence.)

The Times reports that Bin Laden has 250 million dollars and has used SOME of it to build a terrorist network. (In other words, he still has the 250 million bucks, according to the Times.)

Meanwhile the Times reports that the U.S. SPENT more than 6 billion dollars to support terrorism - and that’s just in Afghanistan. In other words, the US no longer has the 6 billion bucks. And how many billions have been funneled to similar resistance fighters in other lands? Such as the Kosovo Liberation (?) Army, or KLA? Consider again Ms. Albright's statement:

"[These]activities are inimical to those of [sic!] civilized people in the world."

Don’t Albright's words fly back and accuse her? Isn’t it the governments of the United States and Saudi Arabia who did something "inimical to civilized people" by "funding terrorism" on a vast scale in Afghanistan? Hasn't this funding resulted in a true catastrophe? Haven't our terrorists turned Afghanistan into a house of horrors?

Who is the greater terrorist? The person who pulls the trigger? Or the superpower that recruits him, pays him, trains him, arms him to the teeth and builds him the finest state-of-the-art training camp with room for "terrorists from all over the world?"

If a worldwide terrorist organization has been created by the people whom the U.S. and Saudi Arabia paid during the Afghan war, aren't the U.S. and Saudi paymasters responsible?

And isn't the U.S. government's claim that it has discovered the existence of a terrorist organization disingenuous? After all, wasn't the purpose of spending (over) $6 billion the creation of precisely such an organization? Wasn't that what they paid for?

The U.S. government says it had a good reason for bankrolling the Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists in Afghanistan: namely, to stop the Russians. Shouldn't we ask: to stop them from doing what? The government in Afghanistan was pro-Russian before the Russians sent in troops and it stayed pro-Russian after the Russians sent in troops. Why did the U.S. have to get involved? Were the Russians going to use Afghanistan as a base for invading China? India? Iran? Pakistan? Sure they were, and I'm Teddy Roosevelt. You can be Mae West, but only if you're good.

What relevance is the U.S. government claim that it had "good reasons" for lavishly bankrolling the Afghan terrorists? Good enough for what? For destroying the lives of most Afghans? And in any case, don't all terrorists claim they slaughter people for good (by their standards) reasons? Did you ever hear a terrorist boast that he burned people to death for a bad reason?

The U.S. did not intervene in Afghanistan because the Russian presence was changing the international balance of power. Rather, using the Russian presence as a pretext, the U.S. intervened because this was a chance to change the international balance of power. In the process, our government destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Afghans and created an international force of Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists who wreck havoc from Bosnia to New York - and who continue to plague the Russian people, most recently in Dagestan.

WHO IS BIN LADEN, ACTUALLY?

According to the Times, bin Laden et al were CIA employees, given the best training, arms, facilities, and lots of cash for many years. That's what the Times reported on August 24, 1998.

In other articles during the same period, the Times reported that bin Laden is a deadly enemy of the U.S. The Times skips over this amazing change lightly in a couple of articles, commenting that the relationship changed, without asking too many questions. In other words, once again, the government line is accepted as self evident.

Should we believe that the transformation from employee to enemy has really taken place? Is bin Laden an enemy in fact, or is he, like so much else that comes out of the White House, an enemy in fiction?

Remember that during the 80s our leaders swore bin Laden and friends were good guys: "resistance fighters." Wasn't that a lie? If the government was lying about them then, why couldn't it be lying about them now?

Let's do a little imagining. Let's imagine that bin Laden et al are still CIA employees. Could it be that the missile attack was not intended to destroy bin Laden or his supporters? Could it be the attack was intended to build respect for bin Laden among Muslims who oppose the U.S. government? To lend him credibility as a serious opponent of U.S. domination? Is his new job to siphon Arab anger into regressive Fundamentalist movements and thereby destabilize secular Muslim societies which might resist U.S. control? After all, Islamic Fundamentalists have proven themselves the most effective enemies of independent-minded governments. This is precisely why the U.S. created an Islamic Fundamentalist proxy army in Afghanistan in the first place. And there is evidence the CIA is doing the same thing today in Algeria - covertly supporting a jihad (Islamic holy war) aimed at disrupting a secular Muslim society not under U.S. control.

And/or is bin Laden's new assignment perhaps to be a bogey-man of convenience whom the U.S. government can link to any government it wishes to bomb?

Does this sound crazy? Maybe it does at that, but is it any crazier than the admitted fact that the U.S. gave these vicious terrorists more than $6 billion in the first place? Could it be that the lunatics are indeed in control of the asylum?

Six BILLION dollars in 1980s money. How much is that in today's money? Ten billion? Just think. Instead of turning Afghanistan into a living hell they could have cured cancer.

[White_Male_Canada]

I can quote.
Here we go...

=======================================
Osama bin Laden: Made in USA
by Jared Israel

Heh-heh good one. :lol: Kook quoting ! .



BBC - 23 August 2002

BILL HAYTON: Can I credit you as from the International Committee?

JARED ISRAEL: I'm the vice-chairman of the international committee. One of the vice-chairmen.

BILL HAYTON: Right

JARED ISRAEL: And I edit the website - www.icdsm.org

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


More from the kook: :lol:

George Walker Bush knew the plans for 9-11. And because he knew those plans, he knew that nobody was going to attack the Booker School.

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm

[North_of_60]

Free Milosevic !

Hahaha !

Good one. He's your kind of kook.

O.K. Here's some more from Selig Harrison

"The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan.' The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan's demand that they should decide how this money should be spent, Harrison said.

http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/taliban.htm

[guyone]

Er...How did the US create Bin Laden and place the Taliban in power? And did everyone forget that Russia was illegally invading that country to plunder it?

[White_Male_Canada]

Free Milosevic !

Hahaha !

Good one. He's your kind of kook.

O.K. Here's some more from Selig Harrison

Fuck off! You`re the maggot who`s quoting from these retards.

Now onto your next nutbag Harrison. Selig comes from the appeasement school of spineless wet-noodles. A member of Carnegie Institution for Peace, once run by Soviet spy Alger Hiss, this nut never met a rouge nation that wasn`t America`s fault. From AQ, to the Taliban, to N.Korea, it`s all the USA`s fault.

Harrison via Newsweek:

North Korea's missile tests in July and its threat last week to conduct a nuclear test explosion at an unspecified date “in the future” were directly provoked by the U.S. sanctions

Bizarre nonsense from the kook left. Harrison is from the appeaser school of international affairs, still intellectually denying reality, blaming the US for what our enemies do, and not having the slightest clue as to what constitutes reality.

Keep up the good lousy work junior. 8)

[North_of_60]

Fuck off! You`re the maggot who`s quoting from these retards.

:lol: It seems I can also quote any retarded scum from the web, huh douchebag ?

Following the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in December 1979, the U.S. administration, first under Carter and then under Reagan, launched a massive support and training campaign for the Afghan freedom fighters, or "mujahideen" (holy warriors), as they came to be known. This you right wingnut can't deny.

And here's some more retarded infos from the NY Times...

''The camps, hidden in the steep mountains and mile-deep valleys of Paktia province, were the place where all seven ranking Afghan resistance leaders maintained underground headquarters and clandestine weapons stocks during their bitter and ultimately successful war against Soviet troops from Dec. 1979 to February 1989, according to American intelligence veterans…The Afghan resistance was backed by the intelligence services of the United States and Saudi Arabia...[and this camp represents] ‘the last word in NATO engineering techniques.’"

NY Times, 8/24/98, p.A1 & A7.

[North_of_60]

And did everyone forget that Russia was illegally invading that country to plunder it?

Do you know why the Soviets invade Afghanistan ?

Speaking of "illegaly invading a country"... this reminds me of something.

[guyone]

Apple & oranges my friend. Apples & oranges.

[North_of_60]

Apple & oranges my friend. Apples & oranges.

You are absolutely right there. And that's why all this shit is so sad.

[trish]

Er...How did the US create Bin Laden and place the Taliban in power? And did everyone forget that Russia was illegally invading that country to plunder it?

plunder Afghanistan...now that's a good one. :lol:
Er...why doesn't Halliburton give a shit about Afghanistan today?
Because Russia already plundered it. :lol:

[guyone]

Is it your position that the soviets did not?

[White_Male_Canada]

Fuck off! You`re the maggot who`s quoting from these retards.

''The camps, hidden in the steep mountains and mile-deep valleys of Paktia province, were the place where all seven ranking Afghan resistance leaders maintained underground headquarters and clandestine weapons stocks during their bitter and ultimately successful war against Soviet troops from Dec. 1979 to February 1989, according to American intelligence veterans…The Afghan resistance was backed by the intelligence services of the United States and Saudi Arabia...[and this camp represents] ‘the last word in NATO engineering techniques.’"

NY Times, 8/24/98, p.A1 & A7.

Which brings us right back to square one :

USINFO > Resource Tools > Identifying Misinformation


Did the U.S. "Create" Osama bin Laden?
Allegations that the U.S. provided funding for bin Laden proved inaccurate


The United States did not "create" Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda. The United States supported the Afghans fighting for their country's freedom -- as did other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK -- but the United States did not support the "Afghan Arabs," the Arabs and other Muslims who came to fight in Afghanistan for broader goals. CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen notes that the "Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding." He notes:

"While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.

Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. Freelance cameraman Peter Jouvenal recalls: "There was no love lost between the Afghans and the Arabs. One Afghan told me, ‘Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them. They thought they were kings.'"

... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]


Al Qaeda's number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, confirmed that the "Afghan Arabs" did not receive any U.S. funding during the war in Afghanistan. In the book that was described as his last will, Knights Under the Prophet's Banner, which was serialized in December 2001 in Al-Sharq al-Awsat, al-Zawahiri says the Afghan Arabs were funded with money from Arab sources, which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars:

"While the United States backed Pakistan and the mujahidin factions with money and equipment, the young Arab mujahidin's relationship with the United States was totally different."

"... The financing of the activities of the Arab mujahidin in Afghanistan came from aid sent to Afghanistan by popular organizations. It was substantial aid."

"The Arab mujahidin did not confine themselves to financing their own jihad but also carried Muslim donations to the Afghan mujahidin themselves. Usama Bin Ladin has apprised me of the size of the popular Arab support for the Afghan mujahidin that amounted, according to his sources, to $200 million in the form of military aid alone in 10 years. Imagine how much aid was sent by popular Arab organizations in the non-military fields such as medicine and health, education and vocational training, food, and social assistance ...."

"Through the unofficial popular support, the Arab mujahidin established training centers and centers for the call to the faith. They formed fronts that trained and equipped thousands of Arab mujahidin and provided them with living expenses, housing, travel and organization." (Al-Sharq al-Awsat, December 3, 2001, Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), GMP20011202000401)


Abdullah Anas, an Algerian who was one of the foremost Afghan Arab organizers and the son-in-law of Abdullah Azzam, has also confirmed that the CIA had no relationship with the Afghan Arabs. Speaking on the French television program Zone Interdit on September 12, 2004, Anas stated:

"If you say there was a relationship in the sense that the CIA used to meet with Arabs, discuss with them, prepare plans with them, and to fight with them -- it never happened."


Milt Bearden served as the CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, where he was in charge of running the covert action program for Afghanistan. In his memoirs titled "The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the CIA's Final Showdown with the KGB," Bearden says the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK were "major players" in the effort to aid the Afghans. Bearden writes:

"[President Jimmy] Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, had in 1980 secured an agreement from the Saudi king to match American contributions to the Afghan effort dollar for dollar, and [Reagan administration CIA director] Bill Casey kept that agreement going over the years." (The Main Enemy, p. 219)


From 1983 to 1987, Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf was in charge of the Afghan Bureau of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which ran Pakistan's covert program to aid the Afghan mujahidin. In his book The Bear Trap: Afghanistan's Untold Story, Brigadier Yousaf confirms the matching U.S.-Saudi arrangement, stating:

"For every dollar supplied by the US, another was added by the Saudi Arabian government. The combined funds, running into several hundred million dollars a year, were transferred by the CIA to special accounts in Pakistan under the control of the ISI." (The Bear Trap, p. 81)


Bearden makes it clear that the CIA covert action program did not fund any Arabs or other Muslims to come to the jihad:

"Contrary to what people have come to imagine, the CIA never recruited, trained, or otherwise used Arab volunteers. The Afghans were more than happy to do their own fighting -- we saw no reason not to satisfy them on this point." (The Main Enemy, p. 243)


Marc Sageman worked closely with the Afghan mujahideen as one of Milt Bearden's case officers, from 1987 to 1989. In his book, Understanding Terror Networks, he writes:

"No U.S. official ever came in contact with the foreign volunteers. They simply traveled in different circles and never crossed U.S. radar screens. They had their own sources of money and their own contacts with the Pakistanis, official Saudis, and other Muslim supporters, and they made their own deals with the various Afghan resistance leaders. Their presence in Afghanistan was very small and they did not participate in any significant fighting." (Understanding Terror Networks, pp. 57-58.)


The Central Intelligence Agency has issued a statement categorically denying that it ever had any relationship with Osama bin Laden. It stated, in response to the hypothetical question "Has the CIA ever provided funding, training, or other support to Usama Bin Laden?":

"No. Numerous comments in the media recently have reiterated a widely circulated but incorrect notion that the CIA once had a relationship with Usama Bin Laden. For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with Bin Laden (emphasis in original)."


In summary:

• U.S. covert aid went to the Afghans, not to the "Afghan Arabs."

• The "Afghan Arabs" were funded by Arab sources, not by the United States.

• United States never had "any relationship whatsoever" with Osama bin Laden.

• The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Arab backing for the "Afghan Arabs," and bin Laden's own decisions "created" Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, not the United States.

[North_of_60]

No. As usual, it brings you back to nowhere.

According to Jane's Defense Weekly, the ISI operatives in contact with al-Qaeda had received assistance from "American Green Beret commandos and Navy SEALS in various US training establishments." Over 10,000 mujahideen were "trained in guerilla warfare and armed with sophisticated weapons." By 1988, Jane's reports that "with US knowledge, Bin Laden created Al Qaeda (The Base): a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells in countries spread across at least 26 countries.

More than 6 billions $ in american weapons (in 80's currency) were given to Reagan's "freedom fighters" to fight the evil Soviets. The bombing of the US ambassy in Kenya involved US donated weapons to Bin Laden and his holly warriors.

This is called : connecting the dots.
US did create Bin Laden the terrorist entity.

[White_Male_Canada]

No. As usual, it brings you back to nowhere.

According to Jane's Defense Weekly, the ISI operatives in contact with al-Qaeda had received assistance from "American Green Beret commandos and Navy SEALS in various US training establishments." Over 10,000 mujahideen were "trained in guerilla warfare and armed with sophisticated weapons." By 1988, Jane's reports that "with US knowledge, Bin Laden created Al Qaeda (The Base): a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells in countries spread across at least 26 countries.

More than 6 billions $ in american weapons (in 80's currency) were given to Reagan's "freedom fighters" to fight the evil Soviets. The bombing of the US ambassy in Kenya involved US donated weapons to Bin Laden and his holly warriors.

US did create Bin Laden the terrorist entity.

Another load of innuendo. A six year old article tries desperately to link "US knowledge" as being direct aid. That is not journalism, it`s misinformation and outright propaganda. What next, the US aided Abd-er Rahman at the Battle of Tours.

Oh look, even those dirty Jooz were in on creating OBL, same article:

"Israel provided weapons like rifles, tanks and even artillery pieces,"

Get that junk outta here ! :lol:

[North_of_60]

Get that junk outta here ! :lol:

I guess there won't be much left of you around here.

[guyone]

Origin
from wikipedia

The Taliban initially had enormous goodwill from Afghans weary of the corruption, brutality and incessant fighting of Mujahideen warlords. Two contrasting narratives of the beginnings of the Taliban are that the rape and murder of boys and girls from a family traveling to Kandahar or a similar outrage by Mujahideen bandits sparked Mullah Omar and his students to vow to rid Afghanistan of these criminals. The other is that the Pakistan-based lorry shipping mafia known as the "Afghanistan Transit Trade" and their allies in the Pakistan government, trained, armed and financed the Taliban to clear the southern road across Afghanistan to the Central Asian Republics of extortionate bandit gangs. In either or both cases, the Taliban were based in the Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan region, and were overwhelmingly ethnic Pashtuns and predominantly Durrani Pashtuns. They received training and arms from Pakistan although they retained some independence, often refusing the advice of the Pakistan government.

The first major military activity of the Taliban was in October-November 1994 when they marched from Maiwand in southern Afghanistan to capture Kandahar City and the surrounding provinces, losing only a few dozen men. Starting with the capture of a border crossing and a huge ammunition dump from warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a couple weeks later they freed "a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia" from another group of warlords attempting to extort money. In the next three months this hitherto "unknown force" took control of twelve of Afghanistan's 34 provinces, with Mujahideen warlords often surrendering to them without a fight and the "heavily armed population" giving up their weapons. By September 1996 they captured Afghanistan's capital, Kabul.


I don't see any mention of US military advisors.

[insert_namehere]

Guyone,

I'll be curious to see if White_Male_Canada points out once again that sourcing from Wikipedia is the act of a dolt.

I hope not, you guys have a good friendship going on and I'd hate for him to piss in your Wheaties.

[guyone]

I purposely used wikipedia. It seems to be the consensus around here.

[qeuqheeg222]

yeah but why didnt we bomb the hell out of china in the korean war when we knew they was supplyin the n.koreans?vietnam too.shit there may have been ruskies pilots dogfightin with john mcain over there and we never went to bomb the cccp?since when did n.vietnam have the industrial capacity in 1965 to mass produce ak-47s and migs....sam missiles?

[guyone]

You've seen the light!

[trish]

It is socialist propaganda when you start mixing and matching information to suit your needs. That makes fox news socialist propaganda.


Is it your position that the soviets did not? I don’t deny the Soviet Union invaded Afganistan, but perhaps you can tell me what plunder they brought home.

[guyone]

AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[thx1138]

Re: Iranians supplying arms to the Taliban. Puppet Karzai himself denies this. Does this mean the US military will depose him for not adhering to the party line?

[thx1138]

While the US military makes all sorts of accusations they conveniently ommit the fact they and Mossad send Kurds and Afghanis into Iran to blow up things and kill people. So even if the accusations were true the Iranians are perfectly justified to ameliorate a threat to THEIR national security orchestrated in Washington, London, Ottawa and Tel Aviv.

[thx1138]

Seizure of Iranians Failed to Validate Bush Line
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=11926

[thx1138]

IAEA declares Tehran "truthful"
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=31197&sectionid=351020104

[thx1138]

http://yournewreality.blogspot.com/2007/11/opec-player-200-for-barrel-of-oil-if.html US military not anxious to take on iran.

[thx1138]

http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2007/11/dishonest-reporting-and-irans.html Dishonest reporting and Iran's centrifuges.