Depressed Bin Laden Thought About ‘Al-Qaida' Name Change, White House Says

[Dino Velvet]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/depressed-bin-laden-thought-al-qaida-change-white/story?id=16244711#.T58cHdWf9Bk


Depressed Bin Laden Thought About ‘Al-Qaida' Name Change, White House Says


By Olivier Knox April 30, 2012

Ever wish you could escape your troubles by changing your name and moving away? Well, according to President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser at the White House, Osama bin Laden knew the feeling.
Hunkered down in his Abbottabad compound, bin Laden anguished as al-Qaida suffered "disaster after disaster," encouraged its operatives to flee to areas "away from aircraft photography and bombardment" and even thought about changing the name of his notorious international terrorist network, John Brennan said in a speech on Monday.
Brennan, Obama's Assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, told the World Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington that bin Laden's pessimism was on full display in documents seized from his fortified home in the Pakistani garrison city. West Point's Combating Terrorism Center (http://www.ctc.usma.edu/) will display the papers this week.
Bin Laden worried about recruiting terrorist talent as U.S. strikes killed some of his veterans, fretting that "the rise of lower leaders who are not as experienced" would "lead to the repeat of mistakes," said Brennan. Al-Qaida's American-born public relations officer, Adam Gadahn, "admitted that they were now seen 'as a group that does not hesitate to take people's money by falsehood, detonating mosques [and] spilling the blood of scores of people,'" Brennan said in his prepared remarks.
Bin Laden himself "agreed that 'a large portion' of Muslims around the world 'have lost their trust' in al-Qaida," he continued.
"So damaged is al-Qaida's image that bin Laden even considered changing its name. And one of the reasons? As bin Laden said himself, U.S. officials 'have largely stopped using the phrase 'the war on terror' in the context of not wanting to provoke Muslims,'" said the U.S. official.


The core of Brennan's speech was a ringing defense of drone strikes at suspected terrorists, including American citizens abroad, which he called "legal, ethical and wise." Critics have called for greater judicial oversight of the process by which the U.S. government carries out targeted assassinations of Americans overseas.
And the United States reserves the right to pursue such attacks at any time and in any country in the world, he said. The attacks have drawn sharp criticisms from people in countries like Pakistan who regard them as outrageous violations of national sovereignty.
"As a matter of international law, the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qaida, the Taliban and associated forces, in response to the 9/11 attacks, and we may also use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense," he said. "There is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely piloted aircraft for this purpose or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield, at least when the country involved consents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat."
Brennan's remarks came as some Republicans ramped up criticisms of Obama's decision to use the raid that killed bin Laden as an argument for his own re-election.

[trish]

Mission Accomplished.

[robertlouis]

That's the problem guys. Where can you find a good brand consultant in a compound in Pakistan?

[Dino Velvet]

Mission Accomplished.

SEALs greased his ass while he was hanging his head. His depression gives me pleasure. Indeed Mission Accomplished as far as that sea turd is concerned. We're all Americans here. Glad you like the drones too.

[robertlouis]

Here's the challenge. How would you rebrand Al Qaeda?

Terrorists-R-Us?

[Dino Velvet]

Here's the challenge. How would you rebrand Al Qaeda?

Terrorists-R-Us?

Goldman Sachs:party:

[robertlouis]

Goldman Sachs:party:

Not fair, Dino. There are some decent guys in Al Qaeda.

[Dino Velvet]

Not fair, Dino. There are some decent guys in Al Qaeda.

Conversion by the Shekel

[Prospero]

What about al-Queda becoming something like Caliphatia or Jihad-u-like. Much more friendly sounding.

Would have been a rewarding contract. if the BBC can spend a million on getting someone to choose a new typeface for their logo then surely al-queda with its global reach could cough up a lot more. But then they also need a new chief executive. Anyone up for tht job/ Comes with a cave or house of your own somewhere in Pakistan.

[jimbo1974]

Here's the challenge. How would you rebrand Al Qaeda?

Id call them Guerillas from Manilla

I fully appreciate Manilla is in the Phillippines, but the name is so catchy i can imagine Al Qaeda would want to move there.

[trish]

I'm hoping they'll adopt the name "I-ah-quit-ah."

[Prospero]

They could move to surrey. Taliban from Wokingham.

or how about Asshole-ier than thou

[robertlouis]

They could move to surrey. Taliban from Wokingham.

or how about Asshole-ier than thou


Wokingham, constituency of the mad vulcan John Redwood, is in Berkshire.

Or maybe they could join the Countryside Alliance - the Tallyho Taliban.

[Ben]

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 12:12 PM EDT Since bin Laden’s death (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/since_bin_ladens_death/singleton/)

The War on Terror and its various civil liberties assaults have escalated, not been reversed or even slowed down

By Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/)

http://media.salon.com/2012/05/obl-460x307.jpg

In the wake of Osama bin Laden’s summary execution one year ago, many predicted (http://www.salon.com/2011/05/12/bin_laden_14/) that the War on Terror would finally begin to recede. Here’s what has happened since then:
*With large bipartisan majorities, Congress renewed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/patriot-act-extension-signed-obama-autopen_n_867851.html) the once-controversial Patriot Act without a single reform, and it was signed into law by President Obama; Harry Reid accused (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/harry-reid-rand-paul-spar-over-patriot-act-on-senate-floor/2011/05/25/AGcgWRBH_blog.html) those urging reforms of putting the country at risk of a Terrorist attack.
* For the first time, perhaps ever (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp), a U.S. citizen was assassinated by the CIA (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/01/world/la-fg-awlaki-killed-20111001-57), on orders from the President, without a shred of due process and far from any battlefield; two weeks later, his 16-year-old American son was also killed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/anwar-al-awlakis-family-speaks-out-against-his-sons-deaths/2011/10/17/gIQA8kFssL_story.html) by his own government; the U.S. Attorney General then gave a speech (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/05/147992097/attorney-general-holder-defends-targeted-killings-of-americans) claiming the President has the power to target U.S. citizens for death based on unproven, secret accusations of Terrorism.
* With large bipartisan majorities, Congress enacted, and the President signed, a new law (https://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law) codifying presidential powers of worldwide indefinite detention and an expanded statutory defintion of the War on Terror.
* Construction neared completion (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1) for a sprawling new site in Utah for the National Security Agency to enable massive domestic surveillance and to achieve “the realization of the ‘total information awareness’ program created during the first term of the Bush administration.”
* President Obama authorized the use (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-approves-broader-yemen-drone-campaign/2012/04/25/gIQA82U6hT_story.html?hpid=z3) of “signature” drone strikes in Yemen, whereby the CIA can target people for death “even when the identity of those who could be killed is not known.”
* The U.S. formally expanded (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904106704576583012923076634.html) its drone attacks in Somalia, “reopening a base for the unmanned aircraft on the island nation of Seychelles.”
* A U.S. drone killed (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133282/The-boy-sitting-photos-protesting-deadly-US-drone-strikes--Three-days-later-killed--US-drone-says-Jemima-Khan.html) 16-year-old Pakistani Tariq Aziz, along with his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed, three days after the older boy attended a meeting to protest civilian deaths from U.S. drones (another of Tariq’s cousins had been killed in 2010).
* NATO airstrikes continued to extinguish the lives of Afghan children (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/25/the_fruits_of_liberation/); in just the last 24 hours, 5 more Afghan children were killed (http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_20517785/five-children-killed-two-incidents-afghanistan) by the ongoing war.
* The FBI increased its aggressive attempts (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html) to recruit young Muslim-American males into Terror plots which the FBI concocts, funds, encourages, directs and enables, while prosecuting more and more Muslims (http://www.salon.com/2011/09/04/speech_23/) in the U.S. for crimes grounded in their political views and speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/a-dangerous-mind.html?pagewanted=all).
Does it sound like the War on Terror and its accompanying civil liberties erosions are ending, or going in the opposite direction? The morning after the bin Laden killing, I wrote (http://www.salon.com/2011/05/02/bin_laden_12/) that the killing of bin Laden would likely re-ignite American excitement over militarism and would thus likely further fuel, rather than retard, the War and its various implications. As always: combatting Terrorism is not the end of the War on Terror; the War on Terror is the end in itself, and Terrorism is merely its pretext.

[onmyknees]

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 12:12 PM EDT Since bin Laden’s death (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/since_bin_ladens_death/singleton/)

The War on Terror and its various civil liberties assaults have escalated, not been reversed or even slowed down

By Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/)

http://media.salon.com/2012/05/obl-460x307.jpg

In the wake of Osama bin Laden’s summary execution one year ago, many predicted (http://www.salon.com/2011/05/12/bin_laden_14/) that the War on Terror would finally begin to recede. Here’s what has happened since then:

*With large bipartisan majorities, Congress renewed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/patriot-act-extension-signed-obama-autopen_n_867851.html) the once-controversial Patriot Act without a single reform, and it was signed into law by President Obama; Harry Reid accused (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/harry-reid-rand-paul-spar-over-patriot-act-on-senate-floor/2011/05/25/AGcgWRBH_blog.html) those urging reforms of putting the country at risk of a Terrorist attack.
* For the first time, perhaps ever (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp), a U.S. citizen was assassinated by the CIA (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/01/world/la-fg-awlaki-killed-20111001-57), on orders from the President, without a shred of due process and far from any battlefield; two weeks later, his 16-year-old American son was also killed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/anwar-al-awlakis-family-speaks-out-against-his-sons-deaths/2011/10/17/gIQA8kFssL_story.html) by his own government; the U.S. Attorney General then gave a speech (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/05/147992097/attorney-general-holder-defends-targeted-killings-of-americans) claiming the President has the power to target U.S. citizens for death based on unproven, secret accusations of Terrorism.
* With large bipartisan majorities, Congress enacted, and the President signed, a new law (https://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law) codifying presidential powers of worldwide indefinite detention and an expanded statutory defintion of the War on Terror.
* Construction neared completion (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1) for a sprawling new site in Utah for the National Security Agency to enable massive domestic surveillance and to achieve “the realization of the ‘total information awareness’ program created during the first term of the Bush administration.”
* President Obama authorized the use (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-approves-broader-yemen-drone-campaign/2012/04/25/gIQA82U6hT_story.html?hpid=z3) of “signature” drone strikes in Yemen, whereby the CIA can target people for death “even when the identity of those who could be killed is not known.”
* The U.S. formally expanded (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904106704576583012923076634.html) its drone attacks in Somalia, “reopening a base for the unmanned aircraft on the island nation of Seychelles.”
* A U.S. drone killed (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133282/The-boy-sitting-photos-protesting-deadly-US-drone-strikes--Three-days-later-killed--US-drone-says-Jemima-Khan.html) 16-year-old Pakistani Tariq Aziz, along with his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed, three days after the older boy attended a meeting to protest civilian deaths from U.S. drones (another of Tariq’s cousins had been killed in 2010).
* NATO airstrikes continued to extinguish the lives of Afghan children (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/25/the_fruits_of_liberation/); in just the last 24 hours, 5 more Afghan children were killed (http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_20517785/five-children-killed-two-incidents-afghanistan) by the ongoing war.
* The FBI increased its aggressive attempts (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html) to recruit young Muslim-American males into Terror plots which the FBI concocts, funds, encourages, directs and enables, while prosecuting more and more Muslims (http://www.salon.com/2011/09/04/speech_23/) in the U.S. for crimes grounded in their political views and speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/a-dangerous-mind.html?pagewanted=all).
Does it sound like the War on Terror and its accompanying civil liberties erosions are ending, or going in the opposite direction? The morning after the bin Laden killing, I wrote (http://www.salon.com/2011/05/02/bin_laden_12/) that the killing of bin Laden would likely re-ignite American excitement over militarism and would thus likely further fuel, rather than retard, the War and its various implications. As always: combatting Terrorism is not the end of the War on Terror; the War on Terror is the end in itself, and Terrorism is merely its pretext.


Ben, I'll give you this.....you earn props for being consistent .........unlike some others who's criticism of terror policies has flat lined.. I recall all the hand wringing about The Patriot Act and water boarding....the ACLU and the left wingers were fully enflamed. Then something strange happened in November 2008, and things remarkably quieted, yet the policy save for water boarding remained almost exactly as it was, and in some areas became even more aggressive. Now it seems it's rather acceptable to kill American citizens with drones, or by other means ........but back in 2007 water boarding was inhuman and mining data for certain phrases and words was a violation beyond anything we'd ever seen. Google it and you'll come up with dozens of pages of left wing outrage. For the record....I rip you when I think you're all wet, but I respect your consistency on this. Let's hope this trend of me saying something laudable about the consistenty regarding your positions doesn't become a habit.

[yodajazz]

The drone strikes are the thing I disagree with Obama, the most. I think that they are ultimately counter productive. However, he has to be able to counter the assertion that he is weak on 'terrorism'. So it seems to me that this list, is proof that he is not. The wide spread allegation that he is a Muslim himself, and thus not willing to fight stated US enemies is an underground, thing he must address. So although I disagree with the effectiveness of drone strikes, I still support Obama in general. Some of that I see as govt agencies just proceeding with their own programinng. Can he afford to fight long term policies, in an election year? His opponents will be seeking out disgruntled govt agency workers, as it is. That s.o.p. for all parites seeking to unseat a sitting prez.

[InHouston]

Bin Laden is in the bottom of of the ocean where he belongs. If I were president, I would have strung him up like a piece of veal and snapped photos for all the world to see, and dumped his sorry ass on the side of the road outside his compound in 10 different pieces, and let his neighbors bury his sorry ass.

[yodajazz]

Bin Laden is in the bottom of of the ocean where he belongs. If I were president, I would have strung him up like a piece of veal and snapped photos for all the world to see, and dumped his sorry ass on the side of the road outside his compound in 10 different pieces, and let his neighbors bury his sorry ass.


Bin Laden had to die. If he lived, and got to tesify, the world find the true masters of 9/11. It would be an American Revolution, if that truth were discovered. And it is my understanding, that he was never charged for having a part in 9/11.

[yodajazz]

Bin Laden had to die. If he lived, and got to tesify, the world find the true masters of 9/11. It would be an American Revolution, if that truth were discovered. And it is my understanding, that he was never charged for having a part in 9/11.

Is there anyone out there who knows alot about the actual persons charged with 9/11? It's been 10 years, since the event. Like, where did they get there funds if they are guilty? Anyway, I dont think that Obama would be alive, if he he didnt protect, the idea of Bin Laden. Not with a trillion dollar war industry, that needs enemies. They pay $400, for one 4 inch metal, as an example, x1,000.
This totally unrelated, but does anyone know anything about, the contracts the oil companies made with Iraq, shortly before Obama took office.

[Stavros]

If you read the memoirs of Robert Baer who was a CIA agent in the Middle East in the 1980s and 1990s -See No Evil- you will read about the way in which the 1970s attacks on US targets from various Palestinian groups was taken over by the Iranians in the 1980s (and since) who he says have been at war with the US since 1979. Arafat was by today's standards an 'Islamist' when he began his career in the 1950s and, in effect, abandoned Palestinian 'radicalism' to return to his Islamic roots in the 1970s when this was becoming a noticeable trend in the Middle East. Before the Iranian Pasdaran could master the techniques of guerilla warfare, they franchised their ops to Fatah and other Palestinian groups -the most notorious 'soldier' from Lebanon, Imad Mughniyah started his career as a teenager in Arafats elite guard, Force 17 before going independent. Baer claims Mughniyah-Fatah-Iran bombed the US Embassy in Beirut in 1983, and that Mughniyah was acting for the Iranians re the various hostages kidnapped in Lebanon in the 1980s. At all times the Iranians were right there, controlling the decisions. The key point re OBL is that he met an Iranian in the 1990s but it cannot be established if it was a 'link' that led anywhere or just one organisation sounding out another. Baer also says that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was on the CIA's radar from early on and that when the US tried to 'arrest' him in a Gulf state in 1997 KSM was given a fake passport and flown out to Prague. The full role of Saudi Arabia even Baer could not discover as all the juice on that Kingdom is kept to a very restricted few. The idea that Saudi and Iran would act together is far-fetched, but that individuals would is quite possible.

Al-Qaeda in the Yemen is currently trying to show what its view of Islam is like in that country, having taken part of the wild south-east where the savagery of its punishment for 'crimes' would make even OBL blush given his critique of some of his brothers...

At this stage we will never know the full back story of 9/11 or the other attacks on the US, including those who joined in and then backed out -by murdering OBL a substantial part of the story is gone, and KSM will probably not be asked questions that would undermine the USA's loyal ally, Saudi Arabia. While everyone drones on about Muslims and Islam, I wonder why the politics can't be the thing that is discussed -it is, after all, the driving force in all this. What has actually been achieved? Palestine is no freer today than it was in 1967, there is no United Ireland, there is no Caliphate stretching from Morocco to Kabul, Iran is still a mess, Saudi Arabia is still a repressed family business. You'd think after all that violence and its human and financial cost someone might say -why don't we just sit down and talk to the Americans and do a deal?

[yodajazz]

If you read the memoirs of Robert Baer who was a CIA agent in the Middle East in the 1980s and 1990s -See No Evil- you will read about the way in which the 1970s attacks on US targets from various Palestinian groups was taken over by the Iranians in the 1980s (and since) who he says have been at war with the US since 1979. Arafat was by today's standards an 'Islamist' when he began his career in the 1950s and, in effect, abandoned Palestinian 'radicalism' to return to his Islamic roots in the 1970s when this was becoming a noticeable trend in the Middle East. Before the Iranian Pasdaran could master the techniques of guerilla warfare, they franchised their ops to Fatah and other Palestinian groups -the most notorious 'soldier' from Lebanon, Imad Mughniyah started his career as a teenager in Arafats elite guard, Force 17 before going independent. Baer claims Mughniyah-Fatah-Iran bombed the US Embassy in Beirut in 1983, and that Mughniyah was acting for the Iranians re the various hostages kidnapped in Lebanon in the 1980s. At all times the Iranians were right there, controlling the decisions. The key point re OBL is that he met an Iranian in the 1990s but it cannot be established if it was a 'link' that led anywhere or just one organisation sounding out another. Baer also says that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was on the CIA's radar from early on and that when the US tried to 'arrest' him in a Gulf state in 1997 KSM was given a fake passport and flown out to Prague. The full role of Saudi Arabia even Baer could not discover as all the juice on that Kingdom is kept to a very restricted few. The idea that Saudi and Iran would act together is far-fetched, but that individuals would is quite possible.

Al-Qaeda in the Yemen is currently trying to show what its view of Islam is like in that country, having taken part of the wild south-east where the savagery of its punishment for 'crimes' would make even OBL blush given his critique of some of his brothers...

At this stage we will never know the full back story of 9/11 or the other attacks on the US, including those who joined in and then backed out -by murdering OBL a substantial part of the story is gone, and KSM will probably not be asked questions that would undermine the USA's loyal ally, Saudi Arabia. While everyone drones on about Muslims and Islam, I wonder why the politics can't be the thing that is discussed -it is, after all, the driving force in all this. What has actually been achieved? Palestine is no freer today than it was in 1967, there is no United Ireland, there is no Caliphate stretching from Morocco to Kabul, Iran is still a mess, Saudi Arabia is still a repressed family business. You'd think after all that violence and its human and financial cost someone might say -why don't we just sit down and talk to the Americans and do a deal?

Sounds like you are saying that the US was/is under attack from covert operations. But isnt the US, the king of covert operations? To my knowledge no foriegn goverment has ever engineered an oveer throw of the US govt, yet the US has been alledged to done this to Iran, as well as other countries. So should we not expect that others might follow our example? I do applaud Ron Paul, for bringing the the subject of "blowback" in a campaign message of his.

by the way, I am not attacking you personally. I'm bringing up things for greater understanding. I agree with your last paragraph, except it should be us, the US and the West ready to sit down and talk. I heard on the radio that several Republicans in congress, wish to cut food stamps, to fund the military budget.

[Stavros]

You are right about the dual nature of covert operations, with the obvious rider that attacks on the USA by outsiders have not been designed to overthrow the government in DC. In the 1960s the activities of armed groups inside the USA did have that ambition but they were not covert, where deniability is the key.

I think the point must be that someone doesn't want the public to know they were involved. Black September, an armed Palestinian group that Arafat set up after the PLO was evicted from Jordan (1970-71) was a front for Fatah, so is using a 'front' in operations the same as a covert operation? In most cases it was known that the perpetrators were Palestinian. Palestinian groups attacked US targets after the 1967 War and specifically because the USA chose one side (Israel) over another-the PFLP in particular selected US targets -eg in Beirut in 1970 (US Embassy, Bank of America); and hit TWA with bombings and hi-jackings four times in the 1970s and 1980s before TWA folded- but the PFLP was open about its identity and responsibility.

I think it is where the Palestinians were working on behalf of another government that it becomes covert -Baer argues that it was Fatah pretending to be 'Islamic Jihad' who bombed the US Embassy in Beirut in 1984 on behalf of the Iranians before they had the expertise to do such things. The bombing of the US Marine barracks in Saudi Arabia (the Khobar Towers) in 1996 has been attributed to a Saudi dissident group Hezbollah al-Hejaz (Party of God in the Hejaz) whereas I have seen allegations that it was an Iranian attack -the Khobar Towers were not in the Hejaz, which is on the western side of Arabia, and there are more Shi'a Muslims in the Dhahran area than in the Hejaz, so this, if it is true would be one form of covert attack on the USA by Iran. As I have argued in another post, there is a strong theory that Lockerbie was a covert attack on the USA by Iran (using the PFLP-GC) in retaliation for the Iranian Airbus shot down in July 1998. I don't know if there have been any covert attacks on NATO forces by Iranians in Afghanistan.

There was a theory that a bombing in Moscow in the 1990s attributed to 'Chechen' separatists was al-Qaeda, but al-Qaeda declared war on the US in 1996 and is the opposite of covert -they tend to declare their involvement, as a badge of honour I suppose.

I think where it happens, the deniability is intended to make it harder for the US to retaliate with a direct strike -Clinton had the cause to strike Iran, but knowing that Iran will then retaliate again I guess the US wanted to avoid getting into a spiral of tit-for-tat attacks that lead nowhere and ultimately kill innocent people for no other purpose other than for one side to prove to the other they won't back down.

Iran-Contra is an example of what goes wrong when covert operations become public knowledge. They tend to be more damaging to the US; Qatar's involvement in the Aab Spring has either been covert, or not exposed to the public at the time, but it hasn't done them much harm. The Saudis seem to be most sensitive to being exposed for their 'educational work' from Bosnia to the Philippines, but then at the outset of the Cold War confrontation in Afghanistan, neither the USA nor Saudi Arabia wanted to be identified as the backers of the Mujahideen -I think it wasn't until 1985 that the US admitted it had been backing the Islamic opposition to Communism....