Divide and Conquer still works

[routan]

As in the case of Libya.

Added commentary:
Funny that when Libya armed the IRA, it was considered a "terrorist nation". But when NATO arms the rebels, they are doing so to promote "freedom" and "democracy".

 

[Ausm]

We helped train Osama Bin Laden...then we killed him.

 

[routan]

We helped train Osama Bin Laden...then we killed him.

we're only 99.9% sure we killed him. D:

 

[Craig234]

As in the case of Libya.

Added commentary:
Funny that when Libya armed the IRA, it was considered a "terrorist nation". But when NATO arms the rebels, they are doing so to promote "freedom" and "democracy".

As I said in the other thread, opinion affects how you feel about rebels.

Opinion was widely, not universally, that the IRA was not justified to kill as it did.

The west didn't just back the rebels. Qadafi has had a record going back a long way from how he took power to the downing of the airliner.

The US was still friendly with him a year ago when he was on 'good behavior', despite conflicts with rebels.

It seemed what triggered the US response this time was a combination of sympathy for the 'Arab Spring' and specifically an excessive planned response by Qadafi.

Reports were that thousands of civilians would be killed very quickly.

After that it got pretty tricky as a stalemate situation, but the progress of the rebels to defeat Qadafi has ended that. It is supporting 'removing a tyrant'.

There are a lot better places to look for western double standards - like the tyrants we have put in power - than Libya and the IRA.

 

[momeNt]

Did all the celebrities paid by Gaddafi's son pay their concert fees back to the rebels yet?

 

[woolfe9999]

And I'll make the same point I just did in another thread about Kurdish rebels. Those who target military don't seem to fit the definition of terrorists. Are the rebels we're supplying in Libya purposefully killing civilians? If so, then yes, we're supporting terrorists like we did with the contras. If no, then the analogy with the IRA fails.

 

[ProfJohn]

We helped train Osama Bin Laden...then we killed him.

We didn't help Osama.

Common myth.
"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 did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him"

 

[Ausm]

We didn't help Osama.

Common myth.
"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 did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him"

Ok if they didn't know who he was until 1996 then how can they be sure 100% that he was not trained and provided weapons by the U.S. wasn't he part or affiliated with the Afghan Mujahideen ?

 

[momeNt]

U.S. provided no training for the afghan's fight against the soviets, only weapons and financial support.

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

 

[werepossum]

And I'll make the same point I just did in another thread about Kurdish rebels. Those who target military don't seem to fit the definition of terrorists. Are the rebels we're supplying in Libya purposefully killing civilians? If so, then yes, we're supporting terrorists like we did with the contras. If no, then the analogy with the IRA fails.

This.

 

[xj0hnx]

We didn't help Osama.

Common myth.
"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 did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him"

Bin Laden is just a footnote in the bigger picture ...

"To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom."


— U.S. President Ronald Reagan, March 21, 1983

The CIA most definitely supplied weapons, and training to the Afghan fighters. Your trying to obscure the history of our involvement with the minutia is noted.​

 

[ProfJohn]

The CIA most definitely supplied weapons, and training to the Afghan fighters. Your trying to obscure the history of our involvement with the minutia is noted.[/LEFT]

Osama is not an Afghan though.

He was an arab and there is little to no evidence that we had anything to do with them.

Read the wiki article.

There were 200,000+ Afghan fighters and a few hundred Arabs. The chances that are money or arms were ending up in his hands are pretty slim, especially since he had his own money and wealth.

 

[xj0hnx]

Osama is not an Afghan though.

He was an arab and there is little to no evidence that we had anything to do with them.

Read the wiki article.

There were 200,000+ Afghan fighters and a few hundred Arabs. The chances that are money or arms were ending up in his hands are pretty slim, especially since he had his own money and wealth.

Like I said, obscuring history with the minutia. He wasn't just some random Arab roaming around Afghanistan. The bigger point being our history of aiding factions here and there, and then winding up fighting them some years later all in the name of political convenience needs to end.

 

[ProfJohn]

Like I said, obscuring history with the minutia. He wasn't just some random Arab roaming around Afghanistan. The bigger point being our history of aiding factions here and there, and then winding up fighting them some years later all in the name of political convenience needs to end.

And what should it be replaces with??


What is a bigger threat to our long term future. The Soviet Union or what we face in Afghanistan right now?

 

[xj0hnx]

And what should it be replaces with??


What is a bigger threat to our long term future. The Soviet Union or what we face in Afghanistan right now?

Seriously? You're scared of some people thousands of miles away?

 

[momeNt]

Seriously? You're scared of some people thousands of miles away?

Have you not seen Dr. Strangelove?

 

[finglobes]

We didn't help Osama.


Common myth.
"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 did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him"

I don't know about Osma but Zbigniew Brzezinski has admitted (in a french mag) that it was Carter who started sending weapons to Muslims in Afghanistan:


Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"


http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html




What Obama has done is help Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Al Qaeda types in Libya. He ignored uprising in Iran (a real threat) and didn't care about Syria until he had to for PR reasons. Alas they are already anti-US/anti Israel. Getting rid of the blocks to Al Qaeda and Brotherhood (and the Caliphate in the end) was more important to Obama. He used US military to help the bad guys.

 

[routan]

And I'll make the same point I just did in another thread about Kurdish rebels. Those who target military don't seem to fit the definition of terrorists. Are the rebels we're supplying in Libya purposefully killing civilians? If so, then yes, we're supporting terrorists like we did with the contras. If no, then the analogy with the IRA fails.

every tom dick and harry comes up with their own definition of a terrorist. by your logic, I can argue that if the military targets civilians, they cannot in any way be terrorists, because they are the military.

 

[routan]

U.S. provided no training for the afghan's fight against the soviets, only weapons and financial support.

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

is the Stinger missile that easy to use?

 

[ProfJohn]

What Obama has done is help Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Al Qaeda types in Libya. He ignored uprising in Iran (a real threat) and didn't care about Syria until he had to for PR reasons. Alas they are already anti-US/anti Israel. Getting rid of the blocks to Al Qaeda and Brotherhood (and the Caliphate in the end) was more important to Obama. He used US military to help the bad guys.

That is the bad part of this arab spring.


Most of the people being over thrown were friendly towards us while the countries under dictators still are the problem.


Perhaps Syria will fall and then maybe Iran will follow. We can only hope.

 

[bfdd]

Craig, except Gaddaffi has been making concessions to the west for the last few years. The guy literally had the same people demonizing him today, praising him for turning over a new leaf back in 08/09 as he helped the West fight off Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups. Going in and arming the rebels was a huge mistake.

 

[routan]

That is the bad part of this arab spring.


Most of the people being over thrown were friendly towards us while the countries under dictators still are the problem.


Perhaps Syria will fall and then maybe Iran will follow. We can only hope.

we will just have to wait and see if the arming of the "rebels" will come and bite us back in the ass!

 

[Macamus Prime]

We helped train Osama Bin Laden...then we killed him.

We also support Turkey for "defending" themselves from Kurds, but invade Iraq because they are commiting genocide against the Kurds.