If you don't think its a war.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

He said invade. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.

Also:

To encroach or intrude on; violate
- American Heritage Dictionary.

Please do.

Done!

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by Heibges

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]

Originally Posted by waste gate

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]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

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.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by U-533

that last part could be misconscrewed

Bunkerism alert!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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... :rotfl:


2 good laughs this morning...

Gonna be brite brite sun shiny day

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by U-533

: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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

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

[Skybird]

usinfo.state.gov - Don'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]

Originally Posted by U-533

"blowback"

:hmm:

:rotfl:

:rotfl: blowback :rotfl:

he said "blowback":rotfl:

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


2 good laughs this morning...

Gonna be brite brite sun shiny day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowbac...ntelligence%29

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

usinfo.state.gov - Don'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!

[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:

Originally Posted by Robin Cook

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/...523838,00.html 8th of July 2005

Originally Posted by Bergen

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/asiapc...ers/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...........................

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?