If you don't think its a war.

[waste gate]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

[ASWnut101]

PBS made this? :o


I'm shocked and amazed!:o :o :o

[waste gate]

PBS made this? :o


I'm shocked and amazed!:o :o :o

I thought I would not get too much flak using PBS.

[bradclark1]

I don't think anybody has said there isn't a war against terrorism. As far as the fatwa, I think there are probably hundreds against the U.S. so one more doesn't change anything regardless of who said/wrote it. On a technical side bin Laden can't issue a fatwa. He doesn't have the credentials. To Sunni's fatwa's are just an opinion. I have opinions but I can't make fatwa's either.

[Tchocky]

Yeah, trust Osama. He's a sane, level-headed guy.

[TteFAboB]

Holy crap! :huh: :doh:

And that is what a man can do when he, well, has nothing to do, living in the mountains, without SH3, virgins, etc.

That was 66583 characters, short. Concise and straight to the point isn't it?

Let's try some other declarations of war. German against the Netherlands:


We announce to you the deployment of an enormous German military force. Any resistance is perfectly futile [The Germans are Borg!]. Germany guarantees the territorial integrity in Europe and Overseas, as well as the dynasty, if any resistance remains absent. If not, then a danger exists of complete annihilation of the country and its form of government. Therefore we admonish you urgently to make an appeal to the people and the military forces and furthermore to establish a line of communication with the German military commanders.

Motivation: We have irrefutable proof of an imminent threat of invasion by France and England in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, which had long been prepared with the joint knowledge of the Netherlands and Belgium, with the purpose of attacking the Ruhr area.

813 characters, including my Borg comment.

American declaration of war on Bulgaria:



June 5, 1942
Dept. of State Bulletin, June 6, 1942.
"JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Bulgaria and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same. (Public Law 563, 77th Congress.)
"Whereas the Government of Bulgaria has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Bulgaria which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Bulgaria; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States. "Approved, June 5, 1942." (Joint resolutions declaring a state of war with Hungary and Rumania, mutatis mutandis, were also approved June 5, 1942.) (Public Law 564 and 565, respectively.)

1255 characters including the parenthesis at the end.

DOW on Germany:


Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:
Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

903 characters. DOW on Japan is pretty much the same size.

Bin Laden invented the super-DOW: it's an all in one political manifesto, prayer, historical revision, speech, defense of the weak and oppressed, economic dissertation, rally for unification under a common cause and on and on and on. Of course this is counter productive: his disciples won't bother declaring war on any other nation because it just takes too much effort. You can plan a terror attack in the same amount of time that it takes to vomit 66500 characters.

[waste gate]

1996.

The man may not have had the Islamic power to issue the Fatwa, but according to PBS he did. Many did and have followed his call.

GW Bush was little more than a governor of the state of Texas.
Where was the POTUS?

[bradclark1]

1996.

The man may not have had the Islamic power to issue the Fatwa, but according to PBS he did. Many did and have followed his call.

GW Bush was little more than a governor of the state of Texas.
Where was the POTUS?
Not trying to be funny but if the POTUS had a crystal ball to see into the future more probably would have been done. The link below kind of sums it up for that timeframe. The short story is patterns and putting it together.
http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1996Report/1996index.html

Here is from 1990-98.
http://www.timripley.co.uk/terrorism/terrorism6.htm

[Sea Demon]

The POTUS (Clinton) in the 1990's saw the World Trade Center attacked by Islamic terrorists and did nothing. The POTUS in the 1990's had two American embassies hit by Islamic terrorists with Americans killed. With no reaction from the Clinton White House. Clinton oversaw American troops at the Khobar towers get slaughtered in cold blood. Clinton did nothing of substance. That same POTUS saw Islamic terrorists hit an American warship(USS Cole)on his watch....again no response. Maybe Clinton was too busy arming China to the teeth with space related technologies to notice????:hmm:

Anybody feel safe with a Democrat in the White House??? Come on...really?

[bradclark1]

How many Americans got killed per terrorist action under Clinton?
How many Americans got killed per terrorist action under Bush?
Which president was warned that an terrorist attack was imminent in the Continental U.S. but did nothing?
In fact if we really want to get stupid how many terrorist incidents in U.S. controlled territories have happened in the last five years and this president has done nothing to stop it.

[Sea Demon]

While it's true it happened under Bush, the stage was set for more attacks during the Clinton era. Had Clinton done his job, there would have been no 9/11. And after that terrorist attack, at least we get a response from the Bush Administration. Unlike Clinton, the Bush Administration at least acknowledges terrorism exists, we're at risk from it, and it needs to be confronted. And since 9/11, no major attacks against us on US soil. And to add to that, the technology transfers to China [sponsored by the US government under Clinton (D)] stopped under Bush(R). The Republicans may not be the best bunch, but at least you know they're on our side. Meanwhile the Democrats are doing everything in their power to make the USA lose this war, providing comfort to Islamic fanatics with deadlines, Demoralizing our soldiers with their rhetoric, and dishonoring all who have been deployed to the Iraq theatre of war.

In other good news, The Democrat Congress's approval rating is at 29%.

[bradclark1]

While it's true it happened under Bush, the stage was set for more attacks during the Clinton era. Had Clinton done his job, there would have been no 9/11. And after that terrorist attack, at least we get a response from the Bush Administration. Unlike Clinton, the Bush Administration at least acknowledges terrorism exists, we're at risk from it, and it needs to be confronted. And since 9/11, no major attacks against us on US soil. And to add to that, the technology transfers to China [sponsored by the US government under Clinton (D)] stopped under Bush(R). The Republicans may not be the best bunch, but at least you know they're on our side. Meanwhile the Democrats are doing everything in their power to make the USA lose this war, providing comfort to Islamic fanatics with deadlines, Demoralizing our soldiers with their rhetoric, and dishonoring all who have been deployed to the Iraq theatre of war.



Then Bush senior was responsible for the Trade Tower bombing? That was in February, Clinton took over in January. Buck passing could go on all day with the exception of Bush junior knowing a terrorist attack was coming and did nothing to find out what.
Everything you say has been said numerous times before and if you can't remember my replies just click on my name and look up my past posts. You will see where I knocked your legs out from under your arguments numerous times but instead of replying you ignore or switch to some other subject.

In other good news, The Democrat Congress's approval rating is at 29%.
Yes the Democrats are sucking but I haven't seen any polls. I guess they didn't learn anything about the Republican failures.

While we're at it let's try and stick to the subject instead of hijacking into politics.

[Sea Demon]

True, But Clinton didn't respond. He let things go to the point where it could and would happen again. Several times over. Bush Sr. at that point was gone and powerless to do anything. Bush Jr. responded after his first confrontation with it. And is confronting terrorism now. And every single action he takes, the Democrats demand it stop. Meaning the Democrats don't want to confront it. The Democrats are against wire-tapping suspected terrorists calling to Pakistan and such, the Democrats want to shut down Guantanamo, the Democrats want those same terrorists from the battlefield to be given US attorneys and constitutional protections, the Democrats want to oddly apply the Geneva conventions to terrorists despite them being unlawful combatants, the Democrats want to undercut us in the Iraqi theatre by demanding deadlines and withdrawal (surrender).

This is the topic. Democrats don't think it's a war. The Democrats even wanted to ban "War on Terror" as a way to describe our current foreign policy. The fact is, Democrats don't understand we are at war. They will not fight it. They will not protect American lives. What they will do is undermine their own country. They will demoralize our troops. They will provide comfort to terrorists in theatre.

Zogby poll yesterday showed Congress at 29%. Despite all the people saying Bush is irrelevant becausae he's at 33% approval, I wonder where that leaves the slim majority of Democrats in Congress.

........look up my past posts. You will see where I knocked your legs out from under your arguments.....blah....blah...blah...

I don't know what you've been smoking. But it must be good. Your "arguments" leave alot to be desired.

[cobalt]

While it's true it happened under Bush, the stage was set for more attacks during the Clinton era. Had Clinton done his job, there would have been no 9/11.



its our foriegn policies that breed that kind of **** not the fact that Clinton didnt go and invade foriegn countries because of a couple of little bombings.

[Sea Demon]

While it's true it happened under Bush, the stage was set for more attacks during the Clinton era. Had Clinton done his job, there would have been no 9/11.


its our foriegn policies that breed that kind of **** not the fact that Clinton didnt go and invade foriegn countries because of a couple of little bombings.

So you're saying there was no Islamic terrorism before Gulf War 1? There was no Islamic terrorism before the USA entered Afghanistan? There was no terrorism before G.W. Bush, huh? You do know that Islamic fundamentalism has been aggressively pursuing it's goals long before the USA even existed...right?

[The Avon Lady]

While it's true it happened under Bush, the stage was set for more attacks during the Clinton era. Had Clinton done his job, there would have been no 9/11.


its our foriegn policies that breed that kind of **** not the fact that Clinton didnt go and invade foriegn countries because of a couple of little bombings.
But he did. Hints: Libya, Bosnia, Iraq. I'm sure I've missed some. :roll:

Back to the drawing board! :roll:

[Tchocky]

Oh good. This argument again.

Blame for 9/11 can be laid at a single door - Bin laden's. It's naive to think the US had nothing to do with the atmosphere that produced Al-Qaeda and the like.

[Sea Demon]

It's naive to think the US had nothing to do with the atmosphere that produced Al-Qaeda and the like.

Al-Qaeda and the like were not created by the USA. It's pure ignorance to think that. This type of Islamic mentality has been around alot longer than the USA. The USA being in the Middle East is only their latest excuse for their rampaging. Go read a history book.

[Tchocky]

Al-Qaeda and the like were not created by the USA. It's pure ignorance to think that. Of course it's ignorance to think that. That's not what I said. At all.
Go read a history book. Not now, I've got a stack of Calvin & Hobbes to get through

[Heibges]

While it's true it happened under Bush, the stage was set for more attacks during the Clinton era. Had Clinton done his job, there would have been no 9/11.




its our foriegn policies that breed that kind of **** not the fact that Clinton didnt go and invade foriegn countries because of a couple of little bombings.
But he did. Hints: Libya, Bosnia, Iraq. I'm sure I've missed some. :roll:

Back to the drawing board! :roll:

Why no bring up that President Reagan let 300 Marines be murdered in a Suicide Terrorist Bombing, and did nothing about it.

Or that President Johnson failed to adequately retaliate for the USS Liberty incident where 3 dozen sailors were murdered, and another almost 200 injured.

Certainly President Carter failed to respond to the Iranians after the capture of the Embassy.

President Ford should have gone to war over the Pueblo.

If all these Presidents had done all these things, everyone would be as scared of us as they should be, and not dare to mess with us.

[baggygreen]

You know what, i think you Americans oughta let the democrats take power, withdraw troops from everywhere and then live happily thinking that they're safe - until the next attack, cos maybe an 'unprovoked' attack will get them to see the light...

actually no it wont, they'll still blame past republican administrations and say "thats ok islamic fundamentalists, have a free plane ticket to your next bombing":damn:

[bradclark1]

But he did. Hints: Libya, Bosnia, Iraq. I'm sure I've missed some. :roll:
He said invade. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
Back to the drawing board! :roll:
Please do. :)

[fatty]

You know what, i think you Americans oughta let the democrats take power, withdraw troops from everywhere and then live happily thinking that they're safe - until the next attack, cos maybe an 'unprovoked' attack will get them to see the light...

actually no it wont, they'll still blame past republican administrations and say "thats ok islamic fundamentalists, have a free plane ticket to your next bombing":damn:

Maybe then DHS would start earning its $46 billion.

[Heibges]

This whole thing goes back to the First Gulf War anyway back in 1990/91.

Bin Laden was mad that the Arabs didn't take care of Saddam Hussien themselves, and even madder that they let American Troops into Saudi Arabia. This brought him into conflict with the Saudi Royal Family.

[U-533]

De Nile, it's just not de river in Egypt mon.

:rock:

[Tchocky]

I just think it's weird that someone had to rely on Bin Laden's word for evidence that America is at war with terror.

*shrug*

[waste gate]

I just think it's weird that someone had to rely on Bin Laden's word for evidence that America is at war with terror.

*shrug*

I thought the same thing, but then I remebered the Clinton administration. A lier by all acounts. Especially those mentioned in the arcticles of impeachment.

The statement is from 1996.

Too busy playing where's the cigar?

Directors of Central Intellegence
John M. Deutch 10 May 1995 - 15 DEC 1996
George J. Tenet 11 JUL 1997 - 11 JUL 2004..........This fella wrote a book recently trying to clear himself of responsibility.

[fatty]

I just think it's weird that someone had to rely on Bin Laden's word for evidence that America is at war with terror.

*shrug*

I thought the same thing, but then I remebered the Clinton administration.

The statement is from 1996.

Too busy playing where's the cigar?

Directors of Central Intellegence
John M. Deutch 10 May 1995 - 15 DEC 1996
George J. Tenet 11 JUL 1997 - 11 JUL 2004..........This fella wrote a book recently trying to clear himself of responsibility.

The statement is from 1996 but its thesis originates in a little dust-up in 1991 which Heibges mentioned above me. And like Heibges says on the front page (he's a smart fellow methinks!) several presidents from both sides of the fence have done little to counter the threat of Islamic terror.

Re: Tenet - interestingly, he himself saw that there was a war. Have you read the 9/11 commission reports?

On December 4, 1998 DCI Tenet issued a directive to several CIA officials and the DDCI for Community Management stating: “We are at war. I want no resources or people spared in this effort, either inside CIA or the Community.”

[waste gate]

.
On December 4, 1998 DCI Tenet issued a directive to several CIA officials and the DDCI for Community Management stating: “We are at war. I want no resources or people spared in this effort, either inside CIA or the Community.”

So what you are saying is, that the Clinton administration, regardless of the warning from the DCI, neglected to protect the citizens of the US?

[Ostfriese]

Anybody feel safe with a Democrat in the White House??? Come on...really?

Most foreigners felt safer with Clinton as POTUS than they feel now with Bush...

And the Clinton government didn't abduct, imprison and mistreat foreign people just because they looked like terrorists. Or because they shared names with one of the 9/11 attackers...

[The Avon Lady]

But he did. Hints: Libya, Bosnia, Iraq. I'm sure I've missed some. :roll:
He said invade. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
Also:

To encroach or intrude on; violate
- American Heritage Dictionary.
Back to the drawing board! :roll:
Please do. :)
Done! :smug:

[Ostfriese]

Why no bring up that President Reagan let 300 Marines be murdered in a Suicide Terrorist Bombing, and did nothing about it.

Or that President Johnson failed to adequately retaliate for the USS Liberty incident where 3 dozen sailors were murdered, and another almost 200 injured.

Certainly President Carter failed to respond to the Iranians after the capture of the Embassy.

President Ford should have gone to war over the Pueblo.

If all these Presidents had done all these things, everyone would be as scared of us as they should be, and not dare to mess with us.
Like people in Europe were scared of Nazi Germany's soldiers and the SS. Hey, but then, they still messed with them. French resistance, just to mention one. Norwegians, Yugoslavians, Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Danes, Dutch, Belgians, Czechoslovakians, even some Germans themselves. They were all scared and they still dared to oppose the oppressors. Not to mention that the fate they had to expect if caught was far worse than anything the US currently does to its prisoners.

If all these Presidents had done all these things, probably everyone would be scared of you - but then you would have to deal with far more terrorism, and with terrorist actions easily dwarfing 9/11.

[Tchocky]

I just think it's weird that someone had to rely on Bin Laden's word for evidence that America is at war with terror.

*shrug*
I thought the same thing, but then I remebered the Clinton administration. A lier by all acounts. Especially those mentioned in the arcticles of impeachment.

True, authority must be questioned at every stage,
But, why are you relying on Bin Laden's word as truth?
It sounds rather desperate at this stage, I mean, obvioudly if we were at war and we would have been told what we're against, rather then what we're not.

[U-533]

Why no bring up that President Reagan let 300 Marines be murdered in a Suicide Terrorist Bombing, and did nothing about it.

Or that President Johnson failed to adequately retaliate for the USS Liberty incident where 3 dozen sailors were murdered, and another almost 200 injured.

Certainly President Carter failed to respond to the Iranians after the capture of the Embassy.

President Ford should have gone to war over the Pueblo.

If all these Presidents had done all these things, everyone would be as scared of us as they should be, and not dare to mess with us.
Like people in Europe were scared of Nazi Germany's soldiers and the SS. Hey, but then, they still messed with them. French resistance, just to mention one. Norwegians, Yugoslavians, Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Danes, Dutch, Belgians, Czechoslovakians, even some Germans themselves. They were all scared and they still dared to oppose the oppressors. Not to mention that the fate they had to expect if caught was far worse than anything the US currently does to its prisoners.

If all these Presidents had done all these things, probably everyone would be scared of you - but then you would have to deal with far more terrorism, and with terrorist actions easily dwarfing 9/11.

:rotfl: easily :rotfl:

I have a picture of De Nile. Wanna see it? :rotfl:

:rotfl: OH yeah... :rotfl: be careful what you post ... that last part could be misconscrewed as a threat... :rotfl:

Thanks for the laugh dude.:up:

[The Avon Lady]

that last part could be misconscrewed
:ping: Bunkerism alert! :ping:

[Skybird]

Al-Qaeda and the like were not created by the USA. It's pure ignorance to think that. Of course it's ignorance to think that.
During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Bin Laden was approached and supported by the CIA with finances, and probably also with intel and logistics. One simply was not aware of the beast one was feeding. One did not understand this strange, forieng, exotic mindset. He fought against the Russians, with his money, and as a field commander in Afghnaistan, that made him a friend. Nobody looked deeper into his motivation. on 9/11 at the latest even the dumbest nut in Langely must have realized that that superficiality was a very big mistake. He payed back the money he was given, by organizing a great show with bright lights and loud sounds. You got some nice big bangs for the money you gave him.

Maybe it is not as direct as with the CIA-Pakistan creation of the Taleban, who were recruited from the many refugees from Afghanistan on Pakistan soil, but there were contacts and some level of cooperation between the CIA and Bin Laden. If one would have checked his mental attitude more carefully one should have been able to raise some doubts that the wardog one has helped out never would turn against the hand that feeded it. Even during the Soviet occupation certain Mujaheddin commanders made it clear in their words that getting rid of the Russians only would be one step, and that one alraedy planned to free the muslim brothers and sister in the southern provinces of the USSR next. A CIA that would have listened more carefully should have been able to make less naive and opportunistic conclusions - and should have seen that it probably would not stop there.

Let nobody say the Taleban, and Bin Laden + Al Quaeda came out of nothing. The West did it's share to create them. A classical case of "blowback".

[U-533]

"blowback"

:hmm:

:rotfl:

:rotfl: blowback :rotfl:

he said "blowback":rotfl:

Where I could run with that...:smug: :rotfl:


2 good laughs this morning... :sunny: :sunny: :sunny:

:sunny: Gonna be brite brite sun shiny day :sunny:

[Ostfriese]

:rotfl: easily :rotfl:

I have a picture of De Nile. Wanna see it? :rotfl:

:rotfl: OH yeah... :rotfl: be careful what you post ... that last part could be misconscrewed as a threat... :rotfl:



Yes, maybe. I'm no terrorist, but as we all know the CIA doesn't really care about THAT difference.
And yes, I'm also quite aware that 'easily' sounds sort of ridiculous, but there are far more worse ways of affecting nations than just killing a number of it's inhabitants.
Let's hope that it's just me and my words against your amusement and not someone who really wants to hurt you and your fellow Americans. :)

[The Avon Lady]

During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Bin Laden was approached and supported by the CIA with finances, and probably also with intel and logistics.
Once again, nope (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html). :nope:

If you tell a lie often enough........................... :roll:

[Skybird]

usinfo.state.gov - Don't (http://usinfo.state.govDon't) tell me you seriously expect the US authorities to admit their role in it so easily, AL! there is a reason why secret services are called secret services.

The link has often been described in according books. But you must not like them, of course.

Refering to your link, also note that I did not talk of widespread conctacts between the CIA and Arabs going to Afghanistan, but contacts do Bin Laden only.

[Skybird]

"blowback"

:hmm:

:rotfl:

:rotfl: blowback :rotfl:

he said "blowback":rotfl:

Where I could run with that...:smug: :rotfl:


2 good laughs this morning... :sunny: :sunny: :sunny:

:sunny: Gonna be brite brite sun shiny day :sunny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29

[The Avon Lady]

usinfo.state.gov - Don't (http://usinfo.state.govDon't) tell me you seriously expect the US authorities to admit their role in it so easily, AL! there is a reason why secret services are called secret services.

The link has often been described in according books. But you must not like them, of course.
Funny. Plenty of independent books and experts quoted verbatim in this US Government response. You must not like them, of course.
Refering to your link, also note that I did not talk of widespread conctacts between the CIA and Arabs going to Afghanistan, but contacts do Bin Laden only.
Very simply, the USG's response denies your claims, whether limited to Bin Laden specifically or Al Qaeda in general.

EDIT: OT - Heh heh! (https://www.cia.gov/kids-page/index.html)

[Skybird]

I do not take the time to scan and put online what I have in writing here, in books of correspondents, historians, expereinced insiders of the matter, from S. Berger and C. Azour, over P. Scholl-Latour to your most favourite buddy, C. Johnson. Please understand that it is not worth it for me. I also refer to various essay over the past couple of years that were to be found and read in German and American weeklies. Not to mention the guys in my group with whom I travelled and for whom it was a lifetime profession to cover that region. However I give you the pont that the link between CIA and Bin Laden is disputed, while people like those I just mentioned, and me, an d other say it has been there, circles close to the US goivernment try to hide it at all cost. the Us of course is not ready to admit that it has far more responsebility to accept, concerning 9/11, than the official version of the story that it was just some evil fella coming from nowhere who all of a sudden turned the US into an innocent, unsuspecting victim - that is simply total nonsens.

I did not spend much time now with Googling for you, you find a lot pro and a lot contra, howver, the wikipedia had two positions that both are representative for the two camps:

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west. http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html 8th of July 2005

The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.
The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html

However, Bergen forgets to say that the MAK was run by bin Laden and helped him to raise his profile and influence in Afghanistan. The CIA funded the MAK both with money, and arms.

And a random find in German, that again reminds of the link between CIA and MAK:
Nachdem nun auch die Sowjetunion selbst zum Kriegsziel geworden war, hatte die CIA allen Grund sich bedeckt zu halten. Geld und Material wurden über den pakistanischen Geheimdienst an eine Organisation namens MAK geliefert, die für die Verteilung in Afghanistan zuständig war. 1989 sicherte sich dann Bin Laden als Leiter von MAK Macht und Einfluss. Dennoch funktionierte die Aufgabentrennung so gut, dass später sowohl Bin Laden wie auch die CIA ruhigen Gewissens behaupten konnten, nie etwas miteinander zu tun gehabt zu haben.http://www.kriegsreisende.de/wieder/alkaida-cia.htm

[The Avon Lady]

Nowhere does dodo Robin Cook, in the rabid left rag of The Guardian no less, detail what his information is based on. Repeat after me - again:

If you tell a lie often enough...........................:roll:

Just a reminder of what a jackass Cook was:

"It is the most wonderful reminder in the very heart of London that the roots of our culture are not just Greek or Roman in origiin, but Islmaic as well. Islamic art, science and philosophy have helped to shape who we are and how we think."

.........................."the debt our culture owes to Islam," for "Islam laid the intellectual foundations for large portions of Western civilization.""
- Excerpts from Cook's 1998 address at the Ismaili Center in London

[Skybird]

Hehe, something smells like if somebody tries to play off my well-known antipathy against Islam against an unwelcomed opinion I voiced. No good idea.

However, if Cook would be the only one saying what he says... but he isn't.

Referring to an official governmental site, that by it's pure defintion supports the offical position of the governemt, certainly is the most uncredible source of information. That's as if I would call Bush himself ont he phone and ask him and believe every word he is telling! Or a governmental speaker - ever saw one criticising his employer?

[The Avon Lady]

Once again, where's the documented proof? Robin Cook's half sentence Guardian claim is unsubstantiated Rubbish and nothing more.

But you want to believe. Go ahead.

[Skybird]

I just checked Google, first four pages of English-language-results. You will not like it, but searching for "MAK" (Maktabu Khidamat) showed me the majority of results referring to the CIA having supported the MAK with massive deliveries of arms and weapons. I know it not differently from the literature I know. And the MAK - was Bin Laden. It also is often pointed oput that the CIA never officially denied to have supported MAK with weapons and arms. Leader and co-founder (1979) of MAK - was bin Laden.

It's not different with German search results. Just check it yourself.

the financial support for the Mujaheddin throughout the war is described to have been split roughly by 50:50, both the Saudis (and bin Laden) and the US investing 6, others say: 8 billion dollars in funds for the Mujaheddin. The exact values given vary a bit, but usually stress that 50:50 sharing. With the exception of the MAK-CIA cooperation both players used different ways and structures of distribution, though.

You say i believe something and should go on. Maybe that is so. But my "belief" is founded on many very different sources: books, media reports, and personal contacts with people whom I trust and who made knowing that part of the world their profession. You, on the other hand - referred to a site that by it's origin is a governmental propaganda outlet only. Again: ever saw a government speaker questioning his government?Maybe you want to go on yourself with only believing something, then?

To come to an end with this fruitless intermezzo, again my quote of this short piece:

"Nachdem nun auch die Sowjetunion selbst zum Kriegsziel geworden war, hatte die CIA allen Grund sich bedeckt zu halten. Geld und Material wurden über den pakistanischen Geheimdienst an eine Organisation namens MAK geliefert, die für die Verteilung in Afghanistan zuständig war. 1989 sicherte sich dann Bin Laden als Leiter von MAK Macht und Einfluss. Dennoch funktionierte die Aufgabentrennung so gut, dass später sowohl Bin Laden wie auch die CIA ruhigen Gewissens behaupten konnten, nie etwas miteinander zu tun gehabt zu haben.
http://www.kriegsreisende.de/wieder/alkaida-cia.htm (http://www.kriegsreisende.de/wieder/alkaida-cia.htm) "

Translation: "After the SovietUnion itself had become a target of war, the CIA had good reason to keep itself covered and to maintain a lower profile. Money and material were sent via the Pakistani secret service to an organization named MAK, which was responsible for it's distribution in Afghanistan. 1989, Osama Bin Laden - leader of the MAK - secured himself power and influence. But the separation of duties worked so well that Osama Bin Laden as well as the CIA could claim that they never had something to do with each other."

In other words: the interaction was hidden, as that was in the interest of both parties. Which is nothing unsual in the world of secret sevices, btw.

I don't quote from that site because I value that site so high, I even don't know it. I quote it becasue this text precisely summarizes in brief the same story that I repeatedly read in detail in books (I mentioned some authors earlier), and it is the same story I am told by former colleagues who still work as specialised mediamen in the Middle East and know a little bit about events going on behind the curtain in those parts of the world.

Nothing more from me about this theme. It is all too obvious, if one does not stare in front only, but alos look to the sides occasionally.

[fatty]

.
On December 4, 1998 DCI Tenet issued a directive to several CIA officials and the DDCI for Community Management stating: “We are at war. I want no resources or people spared in this effort, either inside CIA or the Community.”

So what you are saying is, that the Clinton administration, regardless of the warning from the DCI, neglected to protect the citizens of the US?

Well, that's a tad watered down but I'll grant you it - with the disclaimer that every other president for the past 20 years has also been neglectful to protect its citizens from Islamic terror. Clinton is probably the worst for the attacks that occured during his administration and the weak responses to them, but as he was lambasted for supposedly using the 1998 strikes on OBL as diversions from his, er, personal issues I'm not sure he could have gotten away with much else (there is an excellent paper out there by Hendrickson which explores this further).

But of course when GWB took over, those warnings did not just disappear - certainly not right on the heels of Cole. I find it more comforting to accept the 'institutional/bureaucratic failings' argument rather than believe that these presidents simply didn't care about these threats :doh:

...the CIA funded the MAK both with money, and arms... etc etc

Of course this is true; it's extraordinarily naive to believe otherwise. The Soviets were the bad guys at the time - it was just another of those fun little proxy wars that characterized the Cold War. Being in the shoes of the U.S. leadership at that time - and lacking the foresight we have today - I would probably have done the same. Good idea at the moment (the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?) but not so great in the long run (blowback!)

[The Avon Lady]

I just checked Google, first four pages of English-language-results. You will not like it, but searching for "MAK" (Maktabu Khidamat) showed me the majority of results referring to the CIA having supported the MAK with massive deliveries of arms and weapons. I know it not differently from the literature I know. And the MAK - was Bin Laden. It also is often pointed oput that the CIA never officially denied to have supported MAK with weapons and arms. Leader and co-founder (1979) of MAK - was bin Laden.

It's not different with German search results. Just check it yourself.
"During the same years, the CIA, intent on seeing a Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, was also funneling money and arms to the mujahedin. Milton Bearden, who ran the covert program during its peak years—1986 to 1989—says the CIA had no direct dealing s with bin Laden. But U.S. officials acknowledge that some of the aid probably ended up with bin Laden's group anyway."
- Time Magazine, The Most Wanted Man in the World (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010924/wosama.html)

The situation at that particular time cannot be compared with Pakistan at present. Can you figure out why?

[Heibges]

The CIA has undoubtedly had contacts with the Bin Laden family for generations.

Look at their close relationship with the Bush family. Bandar Bush? The Old Boy Network is probably the oldest continuous intelligence network in history.

Also, foreign construction companies have long been used as CIA fronts, so can it be a coincidence that the Bin Laden's own the largest construction company in Saudi Arabia.

They mujahadin thought Osama was a joke in Afghanistan. He liked getting his picture taken with weapons, more than he actually liked fighting.

I doubt this guy could mastermind a ham sandwich, but he makes a good spokesman I suppose.

They've been fighting some foreign occupier or another for 150 years in Afghanistan. It would just make sense that they would be good at it.

[The Avon Lady]

The CIA has undoubtedly had contacts with the Bin Laden family for generations.
Care to substantiate that or most of the rest of your claims in your post?

If you will it, that doesn't make it true.

[Heibges]

George Senior was head of the CIA. The Bin Ladden's are one of the most powerful families in Saudi Arabia. Casual dinner conversation becomes valuable intelligence. Like Royal Cousins back before WWI.

In regards to construction company tie-in, pure conjecture but fascinating.

[The Avon Lady]

George Senior was head of the CIA. The Bin Ladden's are one of the most powerful families in Saudi Arabia. Casual dinner conversation becomes valuable intelligence. Like Royal Cousins back before WWI.

In regards to construction company tie-in, pure conjecture but fascinating.
Unsubtantiable but accurate.

[Tchocky]

Unsubtantiable but accurate.
Like so many things :)

[bradclark1]

So what you are saying is, that the Clinton administration, regardless of the warning from the DCI, neglected to protect the citizens of the US?
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target that was given to the White House two months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15662785.htm

[bradclark1]

But he did. Hints: Libya, Bosnia, Iraq. I'm sure I've missed some. :roll:
He said invade. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
Also:

To encroach or intrude on; violate
- American Heritage Dictionary.
Back to the drawing board! :roll:
Please do. :)
Done! :smug:
To overrun as if by invading; infest
- American Heritage Dictionary.
But we all know which one he meant.

[bradclark1]

"blowback"

:hmm:

:rotfl:

:rotfl: blowback :rotfl:

he said "blowback":rotfl:

Where I could run with that...:smug: :rotfl:


2 good laughs this morning... :sunny: :sunny: :sunny:

:sunny: Gonna be brite brite sun shiny day :sunny:
Aren't you supposed to be providing proof about global warming or lack thereof or something?

[fatty]

So what you are saying is, that the Clinton administration, regardless of the warning from the DCI, neglected to protect the citizens of the US?
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target that was given to the White House two months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15662785.htm

Yep. Like I said, even though Clinton screwed up, that doesn't exhonerate the present administration. One might argue it makes them even worse because they failed to respond to the warning signs that were already there.