Fox News - Fair and Balanced

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

strummer

Senior member
Feb 1, 2006
208
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Maybe so, but considering the state of the Republican party last November, I'm not so sure that Koz can take much credit for those wins. People were just fed up. And rightfully so. The '08/'10 elections should be very telling.


Fair enough. Kos / Act Blue certainly weren't the only reason Webb and Tester won, but they were a contributing factor. Those races were so close that a whole bunch of factors played into getting victories in those seats, not the least of which were the incredible bouts of foot in mouth that both Burns and Allen displayed during the campaigns. The verbal follies of the Allen and Burns campaigns got extended shelf life and media exposure because of the echo effect in the progressive blogosphere.

If Iraq doesn't get any better by within the next couple years, the General election in 2008 is going to be an absolute bloodletting for the GOP. If their standard bearer is going to champion stay the course in Iraq, another 20 House republicans are gonna find themselves unemployed come January 2009. Add to that that the GOP has to defend 22 Senate seats versus just 11 for the Dems and you start seeing Dems holding a 54 - 46 advantage in the Senate. The GOP's seat in Colorado (Allard is self term limited, with almost no cash on hand right now - he isn't going to run) is almost definitely gone. Other big targets include Coleman's seat in Minnesota (although I think if its Franken, who I think is a poor candidate, then the GOP might hold this one), Sununu's seat in New Hamphire, Domenici's seat in New Mexico, Smith's seat in Oregon (guy is pretty moderate, but Oregon is going to be solidly blue in a Presidential year), and maybe the Maine seat (just as seemingly popular GOPer Lincoln Chaffee was shown the door this past November, overwhelmingly I might add).

In the House, can you imagine GOP candidates getting out there and defending McCain's or Guiliani's or Romney's or Thompson's position of stay the course in Iraq. We could well be looking at 5,000 KIA's by that time. Voters were unhappy about Iraq this past November, if it doesn't improve they are going to be insanely pissed off in 2008.

The biggest Dem target in the Senate without a doubt is Mary Landrieu. With her losing a couple hundred thousand votes in New Orleans, I gotta think that the right GOP candidate will knock her off. Louisiana is going to be comfortably GOP in the Presidential sweepstakes and she is going to be hard pressed to hold that seat. In South Dakota, I think Tim Johnson will (and should) retire and it would seem to be a decent pick-up opportunity for the GOP. Only thing is that Democrat Stephanie Herseth is gonna run for that seat - she has won statewide before and would be quite formidable.

 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,576
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Finally we see some calling it right.

http://kucinich.us/node/3532

Basically he is right, they don't want to debate because they don't want to be nailed down on the issues. Using FOX as an excuse is just a lame excuse to avoid being caught with an opinion

You realize that the democratic primary contenders have debates every single election cycle right? It is unlikely that they will avoid doing so completely. (extremely unlikely). What I also find interesting is that you are quoting Kucinich. I would wager he would fit your dictionary definition of a left wing wacko... one you would likely dismiss out of hand. Why is his opinion suddenly valid now that he is saying something you like?

Are you saying Kucinich's opinion isn't valid?

see how that works? the strawman goes both ways.

:cookie:
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Why would they debate on Fox News, it's not an actual news network but a GOP mouthpiece. Hell, many of them don't even hide it. No one honest thinks Fox News is appropriate for anything but entertainment.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,022
47,984
136
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Finally we see some calling it right.

http://kucinich.us/node/3532

Basically he is right, they don't want to debate because they don't want to be nailed down on the issues. Using FOX as an excuse is just a lame excuse to avoid being caught with an opinion

You realize that the democratic primary contenders have debates every single election cycle right? It is unlikely that they will avoid doing so completely. (extremely unlikely). What I also find interesting is that you are quoting Kucinich. I would wager he would fit your dictionary definition of a left wing wacko... one you would likely dismiss out of hand. Why is his opinion suddenly valid now that he is saying something you like?

Are you saying Kucinich's opinion isn't valid?

see how that works? the strawman goes both ways.

:cookie:

No? I wasn't saying that at all. Please read my post. In it you will see that I was mentioning that I found it odd that someone who would likely immediately discount kucinich's opinion on... well.... pretty much everything else is now citing him as a source. Frankly, what kucinich was saying had nothing to do with what I posted.
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,576
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I found it odd that someone who would likely immediately discount kucinich's opinion on... well.... pretty much everything else is now citing him as a source. Frankly, what kucinich was saying had nothing to do with what I posted.


also, what you posted has nothing to do with what Shivetya was saying. Why is it that liberals think conservatives must automatically disagree with all opinions coming from someone who is a member of the democratic party? There's nothing wrong with a mutual agreement on some issues.

Using your logic, liberals shouldn't be approving of anything Guiliani has to say about abortion, and they should agree with Leibermann's stance on Iraq, and they should agree with everything Zell Miller says about, well, pretty much everything.

Just because there's a D or R next to someone's name doesn't mean you need to give yourself carte blanche to make up your mind before they've said something.





 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,022
47,984
136
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I found it odd that someone who would likely immediately discount kucinich's opinion on... well.... pretty much everything else is now citing him as a source. Frankly, what kucinich was saying had nothing to do with what I posted.


also, what you posted has nothing to do with what Shivetya was saying. Why is it that liberals think conservatives must automatically disagree with all opinions coming from someone who is a member of the democratic party? There's nothing wrong with a mutual agreement on some issues.

Using your logic, liberals shouldn't be approving of anything Guiliani has to say about abortion, and they should agree with Leibermann's stance on Iraq, and they should agree with everything Zell Miller says about, well, pretty much everything.

Just because there's a D or R next to someone's name doesn't mean you need to give yourself carte blanche to make up your mind before they've said something.

Wrong. Not everyone on here is a turbo partisan retard.

Kucinich is not a normal democrat, do you know who he is? It seems that you do not. He is on the extreme left of the democratic party. Considering Shivetya's previous posts on figures of similar leftist views it was reasonable to assume that were Kucinich to be mentioned in another topic he would be dismissed as such. That is why I mentioned that it was odd that he would be linked to as holding a position that Shivetya agreed with.

If Guliani were to be a hyper right partisan, then maybe your comparison to Kucinich would be accurate. You unfortunately do not have sufficient knowledge to make accurate comparisons. A more accurate one would be something to the effect of if Tom DeLay were to say something would someone dismiss it out of hand? The answer is likely, yes.

Before you accuse me of being blindly partisan, please read up on the figures you are referencing, and please read more carefully the contents of my posts.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Comparing Obama to Osama is cute, and most Repugs support and approve of such lies. They think it's OK. :disgust:
Hilarious, since the Republicans created and supported bin Ladin in their fight against one of the U.S.'s previous boogeymen, the Soviet Union. Better fiction has not been written.
Rich stuff. Rich stuff. :disgust:

Ummm... wow. You couldn't be more wrong. (Speaking of fiction) I was waiting for one of your cohorts to correct you on that but apparently they are unwilling to do so. Osama was not part of the US backed Afghan alliance that fought the Soviets. Osama was part of a separate group, unrelated to the US activities in Afghanistan. He didn't like us even back then.

OBL, in his current boogyman form, wasn't formally concieved until the Saudis rejected his offer to remove Saddam from Kuwait and allowed the (infadel) US military on to Saudi soil to accomplish that task.

blah blah blahhhhh

Ummm, trying to re-write history won't make it change, smart guy. My cohorts? Paranoid much? Yeah, I'm part of a vast left-wing conspiracy....
Correct what? How can one correct a presented fact?
You Repugs aren't very up to speed on a lot of things, apparently.

At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1


n 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA" was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.2:

With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.3

The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.4

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam:

Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow.5

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
Link

There were two separate and distinct mujahideen forces involved in the Afghan/USSR war. There were was the US/CIA backed Afghan mujahideen (who later became the Northern Alliance that helped us in our own invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban) and there was the arab mujahideen who recruited from and were funded by private interests from the Middle East. Osama's initial role in that group was as a recruiter and fund raiser. He eventually organized his own camps, planned independent offensives against the Soviets and started his own front in the war.

OBL was not a creation of the CIA. It's not revisionist history and it doesn't require a parallel universe. It's a fact. His actions and funding in Afghanistan in the 1980's were independent of the US and the CIA.

Bin Laden has never had any relation with America or American officials. Claims of relation with CIA or other American departments are all unfounded. Since the late seventies he had strong anti-American feeling. He committed himself and family and advised all friends to avoid buying American goods unless it was necessary. He was saying very early in the eighties that the next battle is going to be with America. ... No aid or training or other support have ever been given to bin Laden from Americans. Bin Laden would bring money from individuals donating straight to him. The weapons he had were either captured from the Soviets or bought from other factions.
From that radical right wing outfit known as PBS...

And stop calling me out. I live half-way around the world from you (or so I would assume, your profile is hidden) and for some reason you post at 1am and then call me out a few hours later. I'm sleeping! As I click "Reply to topic" it's 8am here. I just got up. Anyway, there's your history lesson for the day.

Edit: You called me out at 4:24am. I was definitely out to lunch. :roll::laugh:

"Out to Lunch" in this case means out of it, stupid, clueless.
There is more than ample evidence that Osama and many others were supported by the U.S. to counter the Soviets in Afghanistan. Denying Osama was in Afghanistan or wasn't active during that period is absurd. Read up. Arguing this is like arguing whether or not the sky is blue.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Why would they debate on Fox News, it's not an actual news network but a GOP mouthpiece. Hell, many of them don't even hide it. No one honest thinks Fox News is appropriate for anything but entertainment.

and the other side thinks even less of MSNBC and not much more about CNN


the knife cuts both ways.


Face it, Cable News decidedly went down hill in the 90s and never came back. It seems anything on the bootube is for entertainment.

Its like politicians, if you want action and reliability stick with the local chaps, the national interests are immune for the most part.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospyKucinich is not a normal democrat, do you know who he is? It seems that you do not. He is on the extreme left of the democratic party. Considering Shivetya's previous posts on figures of similar leftist views it was reasonable to assume that were Kucinich to be mentioned in another topic he would be dismissed as such. That is why I mentioned that it was odd that he would be linked to as holding a position that Shivetya agreed with.

If Guliani were to be a hyper right partisan, then maybe your comparison to Kucinich would be accurate. You unfortunately do not have sufficient knowledge to make accurate comparisons. A more accurate one would be something to the effect of if Tom DeLay were to say something would someone dismiss it out of hand? The answer is likely, yes.

Before you accuse me of being blindly partisan, please read up on the figures you are referencing, and please read more carefully the contents of my posts.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I like Kucinich because he is HONEST. He tells us what he believes and isn't afraid of the consequences. Far different that most politicians. While I don't care for some of his ideas at least he is willing to tell me what they are so I can make a choice.

That is the crux of the matter. It is too early for the contenders to risk taking a stance that some public opinion poll may show as to be a losing stance. Kucinich is right, they don't want to be nailed down yet. Go look at their websites and compare it to his, who is telling you IN WRITING what they truly stand for?

Hell he is one of their best candidates simply because he is being up front and honest about it. Of course neither side seems to look for that quality in their people anymore.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,251
1
61
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Comparing Obama to Osama is cute, and most Repugs support and approve of such lies. They think it's OK. :disgust:
Hilarious, since the Republicans created and supported bin Ladin in their fight against one of the U.S.'s previous boogeymen, the Soviet Union. Better fiction has not been written.
Rich stuff. Rich stuff. :disgust:

Ummm... wow. You couldn't be more wrong. (Speaking of fiction) I was waiting for one of your cohorts to correct you on that but apparently they are unwilling to do so. Osama was not part of the US backed Afghan alliance that fought the Soviets. Osama was part of a separate group, unrelated to the US activities in Afghanistan. He didn't like us even back then.

OBL, in his current boogyman form, wasn't formally concieved until the Saudis rejected his offer to remove Saddam from Kuwait and allowed the (infadel) US military on to Saudi soil to accomplish that task.

blah blah blahhhhh

Ummm, trying to re-write history won't make it change, smart guy. My cohorts? Paranoid much? Yeah, I'm part of a vast left-wing conspiracy....
Correct what? How can one correct a presented fact?
You Repugs aren't very up to speed on a lot of things, apparently.

At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1


n 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA" was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.2:

With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.3

The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.4

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam:

Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow.5

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
Link

There were two separate and distinct mujahideen forces involved in the Afghan/USSR war. There were was the US/CIA backed Afghan mujahideen (who later became the Northern Alliance that helped us in our own invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban) and there was the arab mujahideen who recruited from and were funded by private interests from the Middle East. Osama's initial role in that group was as a recruiter and fund raiser. He eventually organized his own camps, planned independent offensives against the Soviets and started his own front in the war.

OBL was not a creation of the CIA. It's not revisionist history and it doesn't require a parallel universe. It's a fact. His actions and funding in Afghanistan in the 1980's were independent of the US and the CIA.

Bin Laden has never had any relation with America or American officials. Claims of relation with CIA or other American departments are all unfounded. Since the late seventies he had strong anti-American feeling. He committed himself and family and advised all friends to avoid buying American goods unless it was necessary. He was saying very early in the eighties that the next battle is going to be with America. ... No aid or training or other support have ever been given to bin Laden from Americans. Bin Laden would bring money from individuals donating straight to him. The weapons he had were either captured from the Soviets or bought from other factions.
From that radical right wing outfit known as PBS...

And stop calling me out. I live half-way around the world from you (or so I would assume, your profile is hidden) and for some reason you post at 1am and then call me out a few hours later. I'm sleeping! As I click "Reply to topic" it's 8am here. I just got up. Anyway, there's your history lesson for the day.

Edit: You called me out at 4:24am. I was definitely out to lunch. :roll::laugh:

"Out to Lunch" in this case means out of it, stupid, clueless.
There is more than ample evidence that Osama and many others were supported by the U.S. to counter the Soviets in Afghanistan. Denying Osama was in Afghanistan or wasn't active during that period is absurd. Read up. Arguing this is like arguing whether or not the sky is blue.
:laugh:
QFPwnge

I don't think you even read my post. That or you are really hoping nobody else did. I can't remember the last time I saw spin like this on here. You're giving Dave a run for his money.

1. I never denied that Osama was in Afghanistan. Don't know how you got that idea.
2. I never denied that he was inactive. In fact, my post clearly states that he was VERY active. So again, not sure how you got that idea.

Re-read my post. Then come back and argue the facts instead of making ****** up.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: Shivetya

the knife cuts both ways.

No, it doesn't. Fox News is in its own category of misinformation and bad journalism in comparison to CNN and MSNBC. You'd have to be intellectually dishonest to believe otherwise. And since we all know you are, your comments aren't surprising.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Comparing Obama to Osama is cute, and most Repugs support and approve of such lies. They think it's OK. :disgust:
Hilarious, since the Republicans created and supported bin Ladin in their fight against one of the U.S.'s previous boogeymen, the Soviet Union. Better fiction has not been written.
Rich stuff. Rich stuff. :disgust:

Ummm... wow. You couldn't be more wrong. (Speaking of fiction) I was waiting for one of your cohorts to correct you on that but apparently they are unwilling to do so. Osama was not part of the US backed Afghan alliance that fought the Soviets. Osama was part of a separate group, unrelated to the US activities in Afghanistan. He didn't like us even back then.

OBL, in his current boogyman form, wasn't formally concieved until the Saudis rejected his offer to remove Saddam from Kuwait and allowed the (infadel) US military on to Saudi soil to accomplish that task.

blah blah blahhhhh

Ummm, trying to re-write history won't make it change, smart guy. My cohorts? Paranoid much? Yeah, I'm part of a vast left-wing conspiracy....
Correct what? How can one correct a presented fact?
You Repugs aren't very up to speed on a lot of things, apparently.

At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1


n 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA" was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.2:

With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.3

The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.4

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam:

Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow.5

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
Link

There were two separate and distinct mujahideen forces involved in the Afghan/USSR war. There were was the US/CIA backed Afghan mujahideen (who later became the Northern Alliance that helped us in our own invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban) and there was the arab mujahideen who recruited from and were funded by private interests from the Middle East. Osama's initial role in that group was as a recruiter and fund raiser. He eventually organized his own camps, planned independent offensives against the Soviets and started his own front in the war.

OBL was not a creation of the CIA. It's not revisionist history and it doesn't require a parallel universe. It's a fact. His actions and funding in Afghanistan in the 1980's were independent of the US and the CIA.

Bin Laden has never had any relation with America or American officials. Claims of relation with CIA or other American departments are all unfounded. Since the late seventies he had strong anti-American feeling. He committed himself and family and advised all friends to avoid buying American goods unless it was necessary. He was saying very early in the eighties that the next battle is going to be with America. ... No aid or training or other support have ever been given to bin Laden from Americans. Bin Laden would bring money from individuals donating straight to him. The weapons he had were either captured from the Soviets or bought from other factions.
From that radical right wing outfit known as PBS...

And stop calling me out. I live half-way around the world from you (or so I would assume, your profile is hidden) and for some reason you post at 1am and then call me out a few hours later. I'm sleeping! As I click "Reply to topic" it's 8am here. I just got up. Anyway, there's your history lesson for the day.

Edit: You called me out at 4:24am. I was definitely out to lunch. :roll::laugh:

"Out to Lunch" in this case means out of it, stupid, clueless.
There is more than ample evidence that Osama and many others were supported by the U.S. to counter the Soviets in Afghanistan. Denying Osama was in Afghanistan or wasn't active during that period is absurd. Read up. Arguing this is like arguing whether or not the sky is blue.
:laugh:
QFPwnge

I don't think you even read my post. That or you are really hoping nobody else did. I can't remember the last time I saw spin like this on here. You're giving Dave a run for his money.

1. I never denied that Osama was in Afghanistan. Don't know how you got that idea.
2. I never denied that he was inactive. In fact, my post clearly states that he was VERY active. So again, not sure how you got that idea.

Re-read my post. Then come back and argue the facts instead of making ****** up.





Yeah, pwnage.... Riiiiight. :roll:

Trying to now slide out of it by equivocating, ducking, shucking and jiving, still doesn't make you any less wrong. Give it up already.

Yes, We did support Him, but "He Went Against Us"

A blatant example of media distortion is the so-called "blowback" thesis: "intelligence assets" are said to "have gone against their sponsors"; "what we've created blows back in our face."1 In a twisted logic, the US government and the CIA are portrayed as the ill-fated victims:

The sophisticated methods taught to the Mujahideen, and the thousands of tons of arms supplied to them by the US - and Britain - are now tormenting the West in the phenomenon known as `blowback', whereby a policy strategy rebounds on its own devisers. 2

The US media, nonetheless, concedes that "the Taliban's coming to power [in 1995] is partly the outcome of the U.S. support of the Mujahideen, the radical Islamic group, in the 1980s in the war against the Soviet Union".3 But it also readily dismisses its own factual statements and concludes in chorus, that the CIA had been tricked by a deceitful Osama. It's like "a son going against his father".

The "blowback" thesis is a fabrication. The evidence amply confirms that the CIA never severed its ties to the "Islamic Militant Network". Since the end of the Cold War, these covert intelligence links have not only been maintained, they have in become increasingly sophisticated.

New undercover initiatives financed by the Golden Crescent drug trade were set in motion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus (controlled by the CIA) essentially "served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia." 4

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html

LONDON [IANS]: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here.

"I warned them that we were creating a monster," Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars said at the conference here last week on "Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia."

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

Harrison, who spoke before the Taliban assault on the Buddha statues was launched, told the gathering of security experts that he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan. "They told me these people were fanatical, and the more fierce they were the more fiercely they would fight the Soviets," he said. "I warned them that we were creating a monster."

Harrison, who has written five books on Asian affairs and US relations with Asia, has had extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia. Harrison was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace between 1974 and 1996.

Harrison who is now senior fellow with The Century Foundation recalled a conversation he had with the late Gen Zia-ul Haq of Pakistan. "Gen Zia spoke to me about expanding Pakistan's sphere of influence to control Afghanistan, then Uzbekistan and Tajikstan and then Iran and Turkey," Harrison said. That design continues, he said. Gen.Mohammed Aziz who was involved in that Zia plan has been elevated now to a key position by Chief Executive, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Harrison said.

The old associations between the intelligence agencies continue, Harrison said. "The CIA still has close links with the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence)."

Today that money and those weapons have helped build up the Taliban, Harrison said. "The Taliban are not just recruits from 'madrassas' (Muslim theological schools) but are on the payroll of the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence, the intelligence wing of the Pakistani government)." The Taliban are now "making a living out of terrorism."

Harrison said the UN Security Council resolution number 1333 calls for an embargo on arms to the Taliban. "But it is a resolution without teeth because it does not provide sanctions for non-compliance," he said. "The US is not backing the Russians who want to give more teeth to the resolution."

Now it is Pakistan that "holds the key to the future of Afghanistan," Harrison said. The creation of the Taliban was central to Pakistan's "pan-Islamic vision," Harrison said. It came after "the CIA made the historic mistake of encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan," he said. The creation of the Taliban had been "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," he said. "Pakistan has been building up Afghan collaborators who will sustain Pakistan," he said. (IANS)
More On The Taliban And Other "Monsters" Of The CIA:

For more details on the CIA's role in creating the Taliban, and dozens of other terrorist organizations around the world, refer to the latest issue of COAT's magazine, Press for Conversion!.

This issue (#43) is on the theme: "A People's History of the CIA: The Subversion of Democracy from Australia to Zaire." It is available (full-text) at our web site <http://www.ncf.ca/coat/>

Anatomy of a Victory: CIA's Covert Afghan War

By: Steve Coll, Washington Post, July 19, 1992

"In all, the United States funneled more than $ 2 billion in guns and money to the mujaheddin during the 1980s, according to U.S. officials. It was the largest covert action program since World War II."

A specially equipped C-141 Starlifter transport carrying William Casey touched down at a military air base south of Islamabad in October 1984 for a secret visit by the CIA director to plan strategy for the war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

Helicopters lifted Casey to three secret training camps near the Afghan border, where he watched mujaheddin rebels fire heavy weapons and learn to make bombs with CIA-supplied plastic explosives and detonators.

During the visit, Casey startled his Pakistani hosts by proposing that they take the Afghan war into enemy territory -- into the Soviet Union itself.

Casey wanted to ship subversive propaganda through Afghanistan to the Soviet Union's predominantly Muslim southern republics. The Pakistanis agreed, and the CIA soon supplied thousands of Korans, as well as books on Soviet atrocities in Uzbekistan and tracts on historical heroes of Uzbek nationalism, according to Pakistani and Western officials.

"We can do a lot of damage to the Soviet Union," Casey said, according to Mohammed Yousaf, a Pakistani general who attended the meeting.

Casey's visit was a prelude to a secret Reagan administration decision in March 1985, reflected in National Security Decision Directive 166, to sharply escalate U.S. covert action in Afghanistan, according to Western officials.

Abandoning a policy of simple harassment of Soviet occupiers, the Reagan team decided secretly to let loose on the Afghan battlefield an array of U.S. high technology and military expertise in an effort to hit and demoralize Soviet commanders and soldiers. Casey saw it as a prime opportunity to strike at an overextended, potentially vulnerable Soviet empire.

Eight years after Casey's visit to Pakistan, the Soviet Union is no more. Afghanistan has fallen to the heavily armed, fraticidal mujaheddin rebels.

The Afghans themselves did the fighting and dying -- and ultimately won their war against the Soviets -- and not all of them laud the CIA's role in their victory. But even some sharp critics of the CIA agree that in military terms, its secret 1985 escalation of covert support to the mujaheddin made a major difference in Afghanistan, the last battlefield of the long Cold War.

How the Reagan administration decided to go for victory in the Afghan war between 1984 and 1988 has been shrouded in secrecy and clouded by the sharply divergent political agendas of those involved. But with the triumph of the mujaheddin rebels over Afghanistan's leftist government in April and the demise of the Soviet Union, some intelligence officials involved have decided to reveal how the covert escalation was carried out.

The most prominent of these former intelligence officers is Yousaf, the Pakistani general who supervised the covert war between 1983 and 1987 and who last month published in Europe and Pakistan a detailed account of his role and that of the CIA, titled "The Bear Trap."

This article and another to follow are based on extensive interviews with Yousaf as well as with more than a dozen senior Western officials who confirmed Yousaf's disclosures and elaborated on them.

U.S. officials worried about what might happen if aspects of their stepped-up covert action were exposed -- or if the program succeeded too well and provoked the Soviets to react in hot anger. The escalation that began in 1985 "was directed at killing Russian military officers," one Western official said. "That caused a lot of nervousness."

One source of jitters was that Pakistani intelligence officers -- partly inspired by Casey -- began independently to train Afghans and funnel CIA supplies for scattered strikes against military installations, factories and storage depots within Soviet territory.

The attacks later alarmed U.S. officials in Washington, who saw military raids on Soviet territory as "an incredible escalation," according to Graham Fuller, then a senior U.S. intelligence official who counseled against any such raids. Fearing a large-scale Soviet response and the fallout of such attacks on U.S.-Soviet diplomacy, the Reagan administration blocked the transfer to Pakistan of detailed satellite photographs of military targets inside the Soviet Union, other U.S. officials said.

To Yousaf, who managed the Koran-smuggling program and the guerrilla raids inside Soviet territory, the United States ultimately "chickened out" on the question of taking the secret Afghan war onto Soviet soil. Nonetheless, Yousaf recalled, Casey was "ruthless in his approach, and he had a built-in hatred for the Soviets."

An intelligence coup in 1984 and 1985 triggered the Reagan administration's decision to escalate the covert progam in Afghanistan, according to Western officials. The United States received highly specific, sensitive information about Kremlin politics and new Soviet war plans in Afghanistan. Already under pressure from Congress and conservative activists to expand its support to the mujaheddin, the Reagan administration moved in response to this intelligence to open up its high-technology arsenal to aid the Afghan rebels.

Beginning in 1985, the CIA supplied mujaheddin rebels with extensive satellite reconnaissance data of Soviet targets on the Afghan battlefield, plans for military operations based on the satellite intelligence, intercepts of Soviet communications, secret communications networks for the rebels, delayed timing devices for tons of C-4 plastic explosives for urban sabotage and sophisticated guerrilla attacks, long-range sniper rifles, a targeting device for mortars that was linked to a U.S. Navy satellite, wire-guided anti-tank missiles, and other equipment.

The move to upgrade aid to the mujaheddin roughly coincided with the well-known decision in 1986 to provide the mujaheddin with sophisticated, U.S.-made Stinger antiaircraft missiles. Before the missiles arrived, however, those involved in the covert war wrestled with a wide-ranging and at times divisive debate over how far they should go in challenging the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Roots of the Rebellion In 1980, not long after Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan to prop up a sympathetic leftist government, President Jimmy Carter signed the first -- and for many years the only -- presidential "finding" on Afghanistan, the classified directive required by U.S. law to begin covert operations, according to several Western sources familiar with the Carter document.

The Carter finding sought to aid Afghan rebels in "harassment" of Soviet occupying forces in Afghanistan through secret supplies of light weapons and other assistance. The finding did not talk of driving Soviet forces out of Afghanistan or defeating them militarily, goals few considered possible at the time, these sources said.

The cornerstone of the program was that the United States, through the CIA, would provide funds, some weapons and general supervision of support for the mujaheddin rebels, but day-to-day operations and direct contact with the mujaheddin would be left to the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI. The hands-off U.S. role contrasted with CIA operations in Nicaragua and Angola.

Saudi Arabia agreed to match U.S. financial contributions to the mujaheddin and distributed funds directly to ISI. China sold weapons to the CIA and donated a smaller number directly to Pakistan, but the extent of China's role has been one of the secret war's most closely guarded secrets.

In all, the United States funneled more than $ 2 billion in guns and money to the mujaheddin during the 1980s, according to U.S. officials. It was the largest covert action program since World War II.

In the first years after the Reagan administration inherited the Carter program, the covert Afghan war "tended to be handled out of Casey's back pocket," recalled Ronald Spiers, a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, the base of the Afghan rebels. Mainly from China's government, the CIA purchased assault rifles, grenade launchers, mines and SA-7 light antiaircraft weapons, and then arranged for shipment to Pakistan. Most of the weapons dated to the Korean War or earlier. The amounts were significant -- 10,000 tons of arms and ammunition in 1983, according to Yousaf -- but a fraction of what they would be in just a few years.

Beginning in 1984, Soviet forces in Afghanistan began to experiment with new and more aggressive tactics against the mujaheddin, based on the use of Soviet special forces, called the Spetsnaz, in helicopter-borne assaults on Afghan rebel supply lines. As these tactics succeeded, Soviet commanders pursued them increasingly, to the point where some U.S. congressmen who traveled with the mujaheddin -- including Rep. Charles Wilson (D-Tex.) and Sen. Gordon Humphrey (R-N.H.) -- believed that the war might turn against the rebels.

The new Soviet tactics reflected a perception in the Kremlin that the Red Army was in danger of becoming bogged down in Afghanistan and needed to take decisive steps to win the war, according to sensitive intelligence that reached the Reagan administration in 1984 and 1985, Western officials said. The intelligence came from the upper reaches of the Soviet Defense Ministry and indicated that Soviet hard-liners were pushing a plan to attempt to win the Afghan war within two years, sources said.

The new war plan was to be implemented by Gen. Mikhail Zaitsev, who was transferred from the prestigious command of Soviet forces in Germany to run the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the spring of 1985, just as Mikhail Gorbachev was battling hard-line rivals to take power in a Kremlin succession struggle. Cracking the Kremlin's Strategy

The intelligence about Soviet war plans in Afghanistan was highly specific, according to Western sources. The Soviets intended to deploy one-third of their total Spetsnaz forces in Afghanistan -- nearly 2,000 "highly trained and motivated" paratroops, according to Yousaf.

In addition, the Soviets intended to dispatch a stronger KGB presence to assist the special forces and regular troops, and they intended to deploy some of the Soviet Union's most sophisticated battlefield communications equipment, referred to by some as the "Omsk vans" -- mobile, integrated communications centers that would permit interception of mujaheddin battlefield communications and rapid, coordinated aerial attacks on rebel targets, such as the kind that were demoralizing the rebels by 1984.

At the Pentagon, U.S. military officers pored over the intelligence, considering plans to thwart the Soviet escalation, officials said. The answers they came up with, said a Western official, were to provide "secure communications [for the Afghan rebels], kill the gunships and the fighter cover, better routes for [mujaheddin] infiltration, and get to work on [Soviet] targets" in Afghanistan, including the Omsk vans, through the use of satellite reconnaissance and increased, specialized guerrilla training.

"There was a demand from my friends [in the CIA] to capture a vehicle intact with this sort of communications," recalled Yousaf, referring to the newly introduced mobile Soviet facilities. Unfortunately, despite much effort, Yousaf said, "we never succeeded in that."

"Spetsnaz was key," said Vincent Cannistraro, a CIA operations officer who was posted at the time as director of intelligence programs at the National Security Council. Not only did communications improve, but the Spetsnaz forces were willing to fight aggressively and at night. The problem, Cannistraro said, was that as the Soviets moved to escalate, the U.S. aid was "just enough to get a very brave people killed" because it encouraged the mujaheddin to fight but did not provide them with the means to win.

Conservatives in the Reagan administration and especially in Congress saw the CIA as part of the problem. Humphrey, the former senator and a leading conservative supporter of the mujaheddin, found the CIA "really, really reluctant" to increase the quality of support for the Afghan rebels to meet Soviet escalation. For their part, CIA officers felt the war was not going as badly as some skeptics thought, and they worried that it might not be possible to preserve secrecy in the midst of a major escalation. A sympathetic U.S. official said the agency's key decision-makers "did not question the wisdom" of the escalation, but were "simply careful."

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166, and national security adviser Robert D. McFarlane signed an extensive annex, augmenting the original Carter intelligence finding that focused on "harassment" of Soviet occupying forces, according to several sources. Although it covered diplomatic and humanitarian objectives as well, the new, detailed Reagan directive used bold language to authorize stepped-up covert military aid to the mujaheddin, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal.

New Covert U.S. Aid The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, according to Yousaf -- as well as what he called a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels. At any one time during the Afghan fighting season, as many as 11 ISI teams trained and supplied by the CIA accompanied the mujaheddin across the border to supervise attacks, according to Yousaf and Western sources. The teams attacked airports, railroads, fuel depots, electricity pylons, bridges and roads, the sources said.

CIA and Pentagon specialists offered detailed satellite photographs and ink maps of Soviet targets around Afghanistan. The CIA station chief in Islamabad ferried U.S. intercepts of Soviet battlefield communications.

Other CIA specialists and military officers supplied secure communications gear and trained Pakistani instructors on how to use it. Experts on psychological warfare brought propaganda and books. Demolitions experts gave instructions on the explosives needed to destroy key targets such as bridges, tunnels and fuel depots. They also supplied chemical and electronic timing devices and remote control switches for delayed bombs and rockets that could be shot without a mujaheddin rebel present at the firing site.

The new efforts focused on strategic targets such as the Termez Bridge between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union. "We got the information like current speed of the water, current depth of the water, the width of the pillars, which would be the best way to demolish," Yousaf said. In Washington, CIA lawyers debated whether it was legal to blow up pylons on the Soviet side of the bridge as opposed to the Afghan side, in keeping with the decision not to support military action across the Soviet border, a Western official said.

Despite several attempts, Afghan rebels trained in the new program never brought the Termez Bridge down, though they did damage and destroy other targets, such as pipelines and depots, in the sensitive border area, Western and Pakistani sources said.

The most valuable intelligence provided by the Americans was the satellite reconnaissance, Yousaf said. Soon the wall of Yousaf's office was covered with detailed maps of Soviet targets in Afghanistan such as airfields, armories and military buildings. The maps came with CIA assessments of how best to approach the target, possible routes of withdrawal, and analysis of how Soviet troops might respond to an attack. "They would say there are the vehicles, and there is the [river bank], and there is the tank," Yousaf said.

CIA operations officers helped Pakistani trainers establish schools for the mujaheddin in secure communications, guerrilla warfare, urban sabotage and heavy weapons, Yousaf and Western officials said.

The first antiaircraft systems used by the mujaheddin were the Swiss-made Oerlikon heavy gun and the British-made Blowpipe missile, according to Yousaf and Western sources. When these proved ineffective, the United States sent the Stinger. Pakistani officers traveled to the United States for training on the Stinger in June 1986 and then set up a secret mujaheddin Stinger training facility in Rawalpindi, complete with an electronic simulator made in the United States. The simulator allowed mujaheddin trainees to aim and fire at a large screen without actually shooting off expensive missiles, Yousaf said. The screen marked the missile's track and calculated whether the trainee would have hit his airborne target.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of such training and battlefield intelligence depended on the mujaheddin themselves; their performance and willingness to employ disciplined tactics varied greatly. Yousaf considered the aid highly valuable, although persistently marred by supplies of weapons such as the Blowpipe that failed miserably on the battlefield.

At the least, the escalation on the U.S. side initiated with Reagan's 1985 National Security Directive helped to change the character of the Afghan war, intensifying the struggle and raising the stakes for both sides. This change led U.S. officials to confront a difficult question that had legal, military, foreign policy and even moral implications: In taking the Afghan covert operation more directly to the Soviet enemy, how far should the United States be prepared to go?

(c) 'Washington Post', 1992. Posted for Fair Use Only

1986

The US begins supplying mujahideen with Stinger missiles, enabling them to shoot down Soviet helicopter gunships. Karmal is replaced by Mohammed Najibullah.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4083015.stm

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Shivetya

the knife cuts both ways.

No, it doesn't. Fox News is in its own category of misinformation and bad journalism in comparison to CNN and MSNBC. You'd have to be intellectually dishonest to believe otherwise. And since we all know you are, your comments aren't surprising.

The above would be amusing if the person writing it didnt believe it.

btw what is the newest excuse for these pussies to run away from a cable news channel?
They worried about getting sand in their mangina's?

 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Shivetya

the knife cuts both ways.

No, it doesn't. Fox News is in its own category of misinformation and bad journalism in comparison to CNN and MSNBC. You'd have to be intellectually dishonest to believe otherwise. And since we all know you are, your comments aren't surprising.

The above would be amusing if the person writing it didnt believe it.

btw what is the newest excuse for these pussies to run away from a cable news channel?
They worried about getting sand in their mangina's?

More of the same. You give real right-wing believers a bad name.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Its really a shame, this was an opportunity for both parties, Fox news and the democrats, to better themselves.

Democrats had an opportunity to reach an audience they normally wouldn't, pitch their ideas to the "opposing team." You don't grow your base by preaching to the choir.

Fox News would be given an opportunity to help their reputation among democrats and liberals as being "fair" and providing an unbiased forum for their candidates to be presented to America.

Both groups would have benefited from the arrangement, its a shame it didn't happen.

Now i think the democrats look worse by their actions then anything Fox could have done.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,022
47,984
136
Originally posted by: Shivetya

Sorry to burst your bubble but I like Kucinich because he is HONEST. He tells us what he believes and isn't afraid of the consequences. Far different that most politicians. While I don't care for some of his ideas at least he is willing to tell me what they are so I can make a choice.

That is the crux of the matter. It is too early for the contenders to risk taking a stance that some public opinion poll may show as to be a losing stance. Kucinich is right, they don't want to be nailed down yet. Go look at their websites and compare it to his, who is telling you IN WRITING what they truly stand for?

Hell he is one of their best candidates simply because he is being up front and honest about it. Of course neither side seems to look for that quality in their people anymore.

Are you serious? It took me less then 10 seconds to find, on their own campaign websites, the positions on every salient issue for all of the democratic front runners. (ie. Iraq, health care, abortion, etc.) How hard was that?

I'll give you a hint: On say... Obama's site it's under "issues".
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,251
1
61
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Yeah, pwnage.... Riiiiight.

Trying to now slide out of it by equivocating, ducking, shucking and jiving, still doesn't make you any less wrong. Give it up already.

*snip*
I have been very consistant on what I have said here. I have not equivicated in any way. You're trying to combine two separate and distinct entities into one homogenous mass. (afghan mujahideen and arab mujahideen) It doesn't work like that. They were not the same thing.

Nothing you posted contradicts anything I've said to this point. You seem fixated on the fact that the US supported the Afghan Mujahideen, a fact that I have not denied. In fact, it's something that I have said over and over. The US supported the Afghan mujahideen with arms, money, training and other support. There, I said it again.

The part you don't seem to get is that there was a separate and unrelated mujahideen force in Afghanistan in the 1980s that was funded and manned from private sources in the ME, not the US. This was OBL's group. He recruited, trained, funded and operated independent of the US backed Afghan forces.

They were two separate and distinct organizations with the same generic names (Mujahideen - Translation: holy warriors). Kind of like the two Roughrider teams in the Canadian Football League. They have the same name but they are not the same team. Clear?

Blowback is real also. It's another point you seem fixated on. I never really addressed the topic because in order for it to be an issue the US would have had to have been in direct support of OBL, which isn't true. But to adress it, I don't deny it's real. Look at Saddam. And you could make a pretty good argument that the Taliban may have been a blowback situation from our time in Afghanistan in the 80's. You probably wouldn't have to look hard to find another dozen examples in recent history.

But in this case, OBL is not blowback. Well maybe indirectly if you consider our presence in Saudi Arabia in the early 90's to be the catalyst that set OBL off against us... But not from any kind of direct relationship between OBL and the US in Afghanistan.

It's an urban legend caused by the same sort of confusion that you seem to suffer from. That being, that there were two separate groups in Afghanistan in the 80's that operated independently and were funded and manned independently... but shared the same name. Once you understand this I think you'll see where the flaw in your contention is.

I hope this helps to clear things up for you.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Shivetya

the knife cuts both ways.

No, it doesn't. Fox News is in its own category of misinformation and bad journalism in comparison to CNN and MSNBC. You'd have to be intellectually dishonest to believe otherwise. And since we all know you are, your comments aren't surprising.

The above would be amusing if the person writing it didnt believe it.

btw what is the newest excuse for these pussies to run away from a cable news channel?
They worried about getting sand in their mangina's?

More idiocy from genx87. The republicans talk about macho so much because they're overcompensating for a lack of it.

In fact, Salon just did an Article on that.

Coulter insisted last night that she did not intend the remark as an anti-gay slur -- that she did not intend to suggest that John Edwards, husband and father, was gay -- but instead only used the word as a "schoolyard taunt," to call him a sissy. And that is true. Her aim was not to suggest that Edwards is actually gay, but simply to feminize him like they do with all male Democratic or liberal political leaders.

For multiple reasons, nobody does that more effectively or audaciously than Coulter, which is why they need her so desperately and will never jettison her. How could they possibly shun her for engaging in tactics on which their entire movement depends? They cannot, which is why they are not and will not.

The converse of this is equally true. As critical as it is to them to feminize Democratic and liberal males (and to masculinize the women), even more important is to create false images of masculine power and strength around their authority figures. The reality of this masculine power is almost always non-existent. The imagery is what counts.

This works exactly the same as the images of moral purity that they work so hard to manufacture, whereby the leaders they embrace -- such as Gingrich, Limbaugh, Bill Bennett, even the divorced and estranged-from-his-children Ronald Reagan and Coulter herself -- are plauged by the most morally depraved and reckless personal lives, yet still parade around as the heroes of the "Values Voters." Just as what matters is that their leaders prance around as moral leaders (even while deviating as far as they want from those standards), what matters to them also is that their leaders play-act as strong and masculine figures, even when there is no basis, no reality, to the play-acting.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Blowback is real also. It's another point you seem fixated on. I never really addressed the topic because in order for it to be an issue the US would have had to have been in direct support of OBL, which isn't true. But to adress it, I don't deny it's real. Look at Saddam. And you could make a pretty good argument that the Taliban may have been a blowback situation from our time in Afghanistan in the 80's. You probably wouldn't have to look hard to find another dozen examples in recent history.

But in this case, OBL is not blowback. Well maybe indirectly if you consider our presence in Saudi Arabia in the early 90's to be the catalyst that set OBL off against us... But not from any kind of direct relationship between OBL and the US in Afghanistan.

They weren't there only in the early 90's - they were there until after 9/11.

Another (related) blowback issue is that OBL was upset that he wanted to fight Saddam and drive him out of Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia instead invited the US.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,251
1
61
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Blowback is real also. It's another point you seem fixated on. I never really addressed the topic because in order for it to be an issue the US would have had to have been in direct support of OBL, which isn't true. But to adress it, I don't deny it's real. Look at Saddam. And you could make a pretty good argument that the Taliban may have been a blowback situation from our time in Afghanistan in the 80's. You probably wouldn't have to look hard to find another dozen examples in recent history.

But in this case, OBL is not blowback. Well maybe indirectly if you consider our presence in Saudi Arabia in the early 90's to be the catalyst that set OBL off against us... But not from any kind of direct relationship between OBL and the US in Afghanistan.

They weren't there only in the early 90's - they were there until after 9/11.

Another (related) blowback issue is that OBL was upset that he wanted to fight Saddam and drive him out of Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia instead invited the US.

Yup. I mentioned that in a previous post. The SA remark was deliberately abbreviated to stay on topic with Afghanistan. But yeah, you're right. OBL offered to have his guys come out of Afghanistan and boot Iraq out of Kuwait and the Saudis elected allow us to do it instead. And then, of course, we never left...
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Shivetya

the knife cuts both ways.

No, it doesn't. Fox News is in its own category of misinformation and bad journalism in comparison to CNN and MSNBC. You'd have to be intellectually dishonest to believe otherwise. And since we all know you are, your comments aren't surprising.

The above would be amusing if the person writing it didnt believe it.

btw what is the newest excuse for these pussies to run away from a cable news channel?
They worried about getting sand in their mangina's?

More of the same. You give real right-wing believers a bad name.

k
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Shivetya

the knife cuts both ways.

No, it doesn't. Fox News is in its own category of misinformation and bad journalism in comparison to CNN and MSNBC. You'd have to be intellectually dishonest to believe otherwise. And since we all know you are, your comments aren't surprising.

The above would be amusing if the person writing it didnt believe it.

btw what is the newest excuse for these pussies to run away from a cable news channel?
They worried about getting sand in their mangina's?

More idiocy from genx87. The republicans talk about macho so much because they're overcompensating for a lack of it.

In fact, Salon just did an Article on that.

Coulter insisted last night that she did not intend the remark as an anti-gay slur -- that she did not intend to suggest that John Edwards, husband and father, was gay -- but instead only used the word as a "schoolyard taunt," to call him a sissy. And that is true. Her aim was not to suggest that Edwards is actually gay, but simply to feminize him like they do with all male Democratic or liberal political leaders.

For multiple reasons, nobody does that more effectively or audaciously than Coulter, which is why they need her so desperately and will never jettison her. How could they possibly shun her for engaging in tactics on which their entire movement depends? They cannot, which is why they are not and will not.

The converse of this is equally true. As critical as it is to them to feminize Democratic and liberal males (and to masculinize the women), even more important is to create false images of masculine power and strength around their authority figures. The reality of this masculine power is almost always non-existent. The imagery is what counts.

This works exactly the same as the images of moral purity that they work so hard to manufacture, whereby the leaders they embrace -- such as Gingrich, Limbaugh, Bill Bennett, even the divorced and estranged-from-his-children Ronald Reagan and Coulter herself -- are plauged by the most morally depraved and reckless personal lives, yet still parade around as the heroes of the "Values Voters." Just as what matters is that their leaders prance around as moral leaders (even while deviating as far as they want from those standards), what matters to them also is that their leaders play-act as strong and masculine figures, even when there is no basis, no reality, to the play-acting.

They are a bunch of pussies for running away from a news channel. Truth hurts sometimes, get over it.
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,898
63
91
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Shivetya

the knife cuts both ways.

No, it doesn't. Fox News is in its own category of misinformation and bad journalism in comparison to CNN and MSNBC. You'd have to be intellectually dishonest to believe otherwise. And since we all know you are, your comments aren't surprising.

The above would be amusing if the person writing it didnt believe it.

btw what is the newest excuse for these pussies to run away from a cable news channel?
They worried about getting sand in their mangina's?

More idiocy from genx87. The republicans talk about macho so much because they're overcompensating for a lack of it.

In fact, Salon just did an Article on that.

Coulter insisted last night that she did not intend the remark as an anti-gay slur -- that she did not intend to suggest that John Edwards, husband and father, was gay -- but instead only used the word as a "schoolyard taunt," to call him a sissy. And that is true. Her aim was not to suggest that Edwards is actually gay, but simply to feminize him like they do with all male Democratic or liberal political leaders.

For multiple reasons, nobody does that more effectively or audaciously than Coulter, which is why they need her so desperately and will never jettison her. How could they possibly shun her for engaging in tactics on which their entire movement depends? They cannot, which is why they are not and will not.

The converse of this is equally true. As critical as it is to them to feminize Democratic and liberal males (and to masculinize the women), even more important is to create false images of masculine power and strength around their authority figures. The reality of this masculine power is almost always non-existent. The imagery is what counts.

This works exactly the same as the images of moral purity that they work so hard to manufacture, whereby the leaders they embrace -- such as Gingrich, Limbaugh, Bill Bennett, even the divorced and estranged-from-his-children Ronald Reagan and Coulter herself -- are plauged by the most morally depraved and reckless personal lives, yet still parade around as the heroes of the "Values Voters." Just as what matters is that their leaders prance around as moral leaders (even while deviating as far as they want from those standards), what matters to them also is that their leaders play-act as strong and masculine figures, even when there is no basis, no reality, to the play-acting.

They are a bunch of pussies for running away from a news channel. Truth hurts sometimes, get over it.

k
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: Genx87

They are a bunch of pussies for running away from a news channel. Truth hurts sometimes, get over it.

The real pussies are the self-hating gay Republicans and others on the right that really do hate gays and gay marriage. Small penise/man complex.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Shivetya

the knife cuts both ways.

No, it doesn't. Fox News is in its own category of misinformation and bad journalism in comparison to CNN and MSNBC. You'd have to be intellectually dishonest to believe otherwise. And since we all know you are, your comments aren't surprising.

The above would be amusing if the person writing it didnt believe it.

btw what is the newest excuse for these pussies to run away from a cable news channel?
They worried about getting sand in their mangina's?

More idiocy from genx87. The republicans talk about macho so much because they're overcompensating for a lack of it.

In fact, Salon just did an Article on that.

Coulter insisted last night that she did not intend the remark as an anti-gay slur -- that she did not intend to suggest that John Edwards, husband and father, was gay -- but instead only used the word as a "schoolyard taunt," to call him a sissy. And that is true. Her aim was not to suggest that Edwards is actually gay, but simply to feminize him like they do with all male Democratic or liberal political leaders.

For multiple reasons, nobody does that more effectively or audaciously than Coulter, which is why they need her so desperately and will never jettison her. How could they possibly shun her for engaging in tactics on which their entire movement depends? They cannot, which is why they are not and will not.

The converse of this is equally true. As critical as it is to them to feminize Democratic and liberal males (and to masculinize the women), even more important is to create false images of masculine power and strength around their authority figures. The reality of this masculine power is almost always non-existent. The imagery is what counts.

This works exactly the same as the images of moral purity that they work so hard to manufacture, whereby the leaders they embrace -- such as Gingrich, Limbaugh, Bill Bennett, even the divorced and estranged-from-his-children Ronald Reagan and Coulter herself -- are plauged by the most morally depraved and reckless personal lives, yet still parade around as the heroes of the "Values Voters." Just as what matters is that their leaders prance around as moral leaders (even while deviating as far as they want from those standards), what matters to them also is that their leaders play-act as strong and masculine figures, even when there is no basis, no reality, to the play-acting.

They are a bunch of pussies for running away from a news channel. Truth hurts sometimes, get over it.
Faux Noise a News Channel? Since when?