-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Two Iraqi generals suspected of complicity in attack on US GIs (re: Karbala attack)
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The US didn't train Osama, OK? It didn't happen. They trained and provided arms for some of the anti-soviet groups in Afghanistan. Osama had relations with some of those same groups, but he provided his own funding. He took great pride in being able to bring has band of mercenaries to bear in support of fundamentalist Muslim groups like the Taliban. But that's all he really was, a facilitator. He did very little if any fighting.
ProfJohn
Lifer
Notice the part I bolded?
IF meaning that we prove that Iran is behind these attacks. Solid meaning we have proof beyond us all just figuring out it is Iran because we know what jerks they are.
I am rather sure that the burden of proof needed before we attack Iran is very high. Such as the capture of agents similar to what Fatah just did. Bush does not have the political capital or the support to just bomb Iran because he ?feels? like they are bad guys. He will need some solid evidence if he wants to take any type of action.
DealMonkey
Lifer
It's clear you're ready to bomb, even if the evidence is unclear at this stage. You're at the conclusion working backwards trying to justify your attack. Clever. Well, not really. I can see right through it.
palehorse
Lifer
QFT... Osama had no direct contact whatsoever with the US efforts in Afghanistan during the 80's. He had his own source of funding, and the ISI (Pakistanti Intel) were not his biggest fans. By the way, it was the ISI who mostly determined who received the arms, training, and funds that we handed out. They controlled most of the access to those items, and distributed them according to their own agenda.
In other words, the entire "the US trained OBL" is a complete myth. I personally rank it up there with the idiots who believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.
Last, OBL earned his reputation in a single large battle near the very end of the Societ occupation. It is believed that he did fight bravely, but only on that one occasion. The rest of OBL's time was spent running his recruitment operations in Pakistan and traveling around the ME raising money.
dphantom
Diamond Member
Then by definition neither do you so why are you criticizing others when you are clueless yourself?
At least a few are attempting an ANALYSIS (that's 4 syllables - hope that's ok for you) of the situation based on what we know and what we can REASONABLY speculate open. Ooops, sorry another 4 syllable word.
Lemon law
Lifer
As usual---you have it wrong palehorse74,
The US and Ossama Bin Laden are linked at the hip---even though the US did not directly train Ossama,
the CIA trained the mujahadeen in terrorist tactics and armed them with deadly stinger missiles. The Russians called the mujahadeen terrorists---the US called them freedom fighters. And in turn the mujahadeen passed on their CIA gained knowledge directly to Ossama Bin Laden.
While you are somewhat correct that Ossama's main role was in the arab funding side, but its still where Ossama cut his terrorist teeth, and Al-Quida still owes its birth to the CIA.
Now 20 years later you are trying to blame Iran for doing exactly what the US did openly in Afghanistan, and that shoe just does not fit.---and even if it did---it would be a double standard.
But if you want a direct link to 911---blame Ronald Reagan's decision to have the CIA train terrorists
in hit and run tactics. And Ossama Bin Laden is a fruit from that very tree. That is undeniable no matter how hard you wish it were not true. And now that very training has cross pollinated to Iraq
from many other sources than just Ossama.
The US and Ossama Bin Laden are linked at the hip---even though the US did not directly train Ossama,
the CIA trained the mujahadeen in terrorist tactics and armed them with deadly stinger missiles. The Russians called the mujahadeen terrorists---the US called them freedom fighters. And in turn the mujahadeen passed on their CIA gained knowledge directly to Ossama Bin Laden.
While you are somewhat correct that Ossama's main role was in the arab funding side, but its still where Ossama cut his terrorist teeth, and Al-Quida still owes its birth to the CIA.
Now 20 years later you are trying to blame Iran for doing exactly what the US did openly in Afghanistan, and that shoe just does not fit.---and even if it did---it would be a double standard.
But if you want a direct link to 911---blame Ronald Reagan's decision to have the CIA train terrorists
in hit and run tactics. And Ossama Bin Laden is a fruit from that very tree. That is undeniable no matter how hard you wish it were not true. And now that very training has cross pollinated to Iraq
from many other sources than just Ossama.
al-Qaeda does not owe its birth to the CIA. It owes its birth to the Muslim Brotherhood, if anyone. And the Muslim Brotherhood started mainly in Egypt, before the Soviets fought in Afghanistan.
You could definitely make an argument that using the Pakistani ISI as the conduit for the vast majority of the funding and arms that went into Afghanistan was a bad decision. The ISI was, and may still be, heavily controlled by persons with strong sympathies towards radical Islam. As such they directed huge percentages of the aid to the commanders who were the most outspoken proponents of radical Islam. One of them, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, is still being chased through the mountains along the Afghan/Pakistani border.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hekmatyar
As palehorse has stated in these forums a couple of times, read the book "Ghost Wars" by Steven Coll. It is an almost scholarly work that goes into great detail about the players and the relationships from the time of the Soviet invasion to 9/11.
The most direct link to 9/11 and why Osama moved his organization in that direction is his feeling of betrayal when the Saudi king wouldn't let him and his band of mercenaries expel Saddam from Kuwait. While he was unhappy with US forces being in SA before that, he hated us for it from that point on. He has a very big ego. Which is part of the reason he reveled in being a facilitator during the 80s in Afghanistan. The commanders would come to him asking for resources and it was almost like he was holding court. He loved it.
Lemon law
Lifer
Posed by jimkyser--As palehorse has stated in these forums a couple of time, read the book "Ghost Wars" by Steven Coll. It is an almost scholarly work that goes into great detail about the players and the relationships from the time of the Soviet invasion to 9/11.
The almost scholarly work is the entire weasel word---its one thing to understand the chronological set of events---its another thing to understand what those events implie for future actions. Its one thing to have an honest and logical debate on the extent of CIA linkage to Ossama---its quite another thing to buy into a future war based on a phony interpretation of history.
And by that same logic the neocons who started this Iraq mess were almost scholars too.
The almost scholarly work is the entire weasel word---its one thing to understand the chronological set of events---its another thing to understand what those events implie for future actions. Its one thing to have an honest and logical debate on the extent of CIA linkage to Ossama---its quite another thing to buy into a future war based on a phony interpretation of history.
And by that same logic the neocons who started this Iraq mess were almost scholars too.
palehorse
Lifer
oh ya? not so much...
Please reread the bolded portions as many times as it takes for the contraditions to sink in. best of luck to ya.
uhh, ok, maybe it's just me, but I failed to see you make a rational direct connection between AQ and the CIA. So, uhhh, they knew some of the same people? Alrighty then...
umm, ok, this one is easy: I AM ON THE US SIDE. Again, re-read that as often as it takes for it to sink in... i know it's a strange concept to you, and all, but do me a solid and try, ok? just try...
Ok, so... let me get this straight... If I take an 18-yr-old guy and train him to shoot a gun, run through tires, and climb trees... then, 15 years later, that same guy climbs a tree and proceeds to shoot and kill every citizen in range... it's somehow MY fault?!?
uhh, ya, I don't f'n think so... I'm not going to buy into your Butterfly Effect Theory on terrorism. good luck with that!
Since you haven't read it, your critique of the book is of little value. By scholarly, I mean very detailed and highly cross-referenced. And it does actually make the CIA out to be like a bunch of bafoons for their use of the ISI as a proxy while the State Department tried to enforce some control as to how the resources were dispensed. It also discusses in great detail the genesis of the varied Muslim militant organizations; who started them, what there relationships were with outside groups. It also covers that fact that, even though he probably became our greatest ally in Afghanistan and had a very moderate view of Islam's place in the future of the country and world, the CIA didn't trust Massoud, the eventual leader of the Northern Alliance, and as such, he received very little support.
Basically, the use of the ISI and the lack of oversight it caused was a major fault of the whole operation. Had Reagan been willing to openly oppose the Soviets and directly fund the rebels I think the situation post the Soviet withdrawal could have been far less chaotic. The other problem is that once the Soviets left, we did too. A better managed and more continuous program would have helped stem the influence of the Taliban and Osama wouldn't have been able to find safe haven there. That alone would have reduced his reach and probably stopped him from gaining influence in places like Germany, where Atta and some of the other highjackers first started to plan their actions.
Lemon law
Lifer
In my humble opinion, the second giant Uncle Sammy mistake was to abandon Afghanistan like some discarded tool after the Soviets pulled out. Which paved the way for a decade long civil war, led to the rise of the Taliban, and aided the terrorist cause. But the rise of the Taliban was motivated by an overwhelming civilian demand for a force to oppose those war lords left over from the Soviet occupation. And once the taliban was established and the power of the war lords was reduced, it also played into Pakistani interests because it opened up trade routes into the various stans to the North.----and now the war lords are back with a vengeance, Karzi is the defacto mayor of kabul, and opium production is up 258%.
This has also led to the rise of the Afghani war lords whose power must be broken before or during the formation of a central government. And now the same forces of local strong men are operating in Iraq. 100% home grown and 100% opposed to any central government that will police them.
All this happened right after the fall of Rome---which led to fuedalism--and it only took a thousand years of events to lead to the formation of modern nations as we know them.
All very predictable but simply ignored by the over optimistic.
This has also led to the rise of the Afghani war lords whose power must be broken before or during the formation of a central government. And now the same forces of local strong men are operating in Iraq. 100% home grown and 100% opposed to any central government that will police them.
All this happened right after the fall of Rome---which led to fuedalism--and it only took a thousand years of events to lead to the formation of modern nations as we know them.
All very predictable but simply ignored by the over optimistic.
Lemon law
Lifer
I see you think you control the agenda here---you just can't see that your view of the world is wrong.
Which is exactly the problem----I can understand that you think the USA is 100% angelic---and Ossama and even Iran is 100% demonic by birthright. And a single US life is sacred while all other humans on the planet are totally expendable to any CIA whim. The problem is some other people have exactly the polar opposite view---and would happily expend the lives of other nationality's like water---and cry foul if a hair on the head of any in their nation is harmed. Its a classic my nation right or wrong.---which quite frankly makes me and others on this forum sick with worry---and leads me and others to question your sick thinking which is a classic war waiting to happen.--or should I say already happening---but its still not too late to pull back before this goes global.
Thankfully most people in the USA and the world have a different view---with external standards of right and wrong---and they hope their nation is right because it acts right. Sadly--being in the right does not even remotely describe GWB&co.---and it becomes my patriotic duty to oppose GWB&co. because I have to feel he is almost 100% wrong. Which has exactly zero to do with any question of what I think of Ossama Bin Laden.---who is also 100% wrong and a similar threat to world peace in my opinion. But the presence of a Ossama Bin laden does not require a GWB to oppose it---wiser leadership would not be so polarizing.---all GWB does is act as AL-Quida recruiter #1.
I thank God most Americans now have wised up---if you have not---that is own your sad moral bankruptcy lookout.
Which is exactly the problem----I can understand that you think the USA is 100% angelic---and Ossama and even Iran is 100% demonic by birthright. And a single US life is sacred while all other humans on the planet are totally expendable to any CIA whim. The problem is some other people have exactly the polar opposite view---and would happily expend the lives of other nationality's like water---and cry foul if a hair on the head of any in their nation is harmed. Its a classic my nation right or wrong.---which quite frankly makes me and others on this forum sick with worry---and leads me and others to question your sick thinking which is a classic war waiting to happen.--or should I say already happening---but its still not too late to pull back before this goes global.
Thankfully most people in the USA and the world have a different view---with external standards of right and wrong---and they hope their nation is right because it acts right. Sadly--being in the right does not even remotely describe GWB&co.---and it becomes my patriotic duty to oppose GWB&co. because I have to feel he is almost 100% wrong. Which has exactly zero to do with any question of what I think of Ossama Bin Laden.---who is also 100% wrong and a similar threat to world peace in my opinion. But the presence of a Ossama Bin laden does not require a GWB to oppose it---wiser leadership would not be so polarizing.---all GWB does is act as AL-Quida recruiter #1.
I thank God most Americans now have wised up---if you have not---that is own your sad moral bankruptcy lookout.
Jaskalas
Lifer
In short, you demonize this country and prop up foreign right wing agendas, so long as they swear death to America. Glad you?ve got your priorities straight there, wouldn?t want to support and prop up nuclear proliferation amidst martyrs. You even mention Osama isn?t so bad eh?
As for Iran, it?s their kingpin actions for terrorism across the entire region. It?s swearing death to us, their nuclear advances, hostile rhetoric, and acts of war against us in Iraq. So long as their military take off their uniforms though, you?ll blindly follow along that they cannot possibly be involved, that against their own words they are peaceful, and even if they were guilty you already excuse them by blaming us for being in their region.
You?ve got your bases covered there. See no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil. Unless it?s domestic, then it?s all right-wing evil agenda conspiracy theories. You?re too busy waging a war here at home, politically, to care about foreign threats.
Republicans view today?s threat as militant Islam that has sworn to kill us, and has already killed many. Democrats view the threat as Republicans who are defending this country. It?s really just that simple.
That?s how you fight wars. That?s why you fire bomb Tokyo, carpet bomb Dresden, and nuke Japan. History the world over has shown us by example that casualties are a part of war. You may intend, for the purposes of demonizing us and aiding them, to try to paint equality between the two sides here but I?ll spell out the difference.
The difference between us and our opponent is that we strive to save lives, they strive to take lives. Their religion calls for conquering the planet. Our mandate is only to conquer those who intend to kill us. A lesson we were supposed to remember from September 11th, which has long since been forgotten.
The radical Islamic identity already is global, and while you can question my ?sick thinking? all you like I?m not the one swearing death to you under some god given mandate.
You speak of sensibilities all you like, and unending diplomatic solutions, but none of it is taking action to prevent their goals. Like sitting down to chat with a guy assembling the pieces to a gun. You sit there telling him not to do it; you?re committed to respecting the value of his life above your own. You keep telling him to be cool about it, but then he finishes the assembly and kills you. A lot of good your respect for him did you.
Hello North Korea, and perpetual neutralization of the USA. Our opponents make all the moves while we make none. How is that going to accomplish anything?
I hope we act right too. Iraq had horrible intelligence, probably because the presumptions that previously used chemical weapons were indication of continued weapons after the first war and the UN disarmament. We were proven wrong, and then made horrible decisions in rebuilding. The war there does not serve us in dealing with real threats like the Iran and North Korea alliance.
Unlike Iraq, Iran does have nuclear technology. It does control various terrorist organizations. The only question remaining are their intentions while their closest ally North Korea has already proven how to play us like a fiddle and the true intentions of this hostile alliance.
I believe he has made terrible mistakes, especially Iraq, in handling this global war. I wish we had a more competent president who could better command, talk straight, and lead our country into dealing with these threats. However, when faced with the only alternative being an ENTIRELY COMPLETE denial of this war, George W. Bush has remained the only choice (2004) for those who want this country to even so much as respond and take affirmative actions against our opponents.
I will be thrilled come the day when we have a new President who understands that we must do whatever is necessary, and who may perform these tasks with competence. Yet I will be deeply saddened if we end up with one who is telling us there is no war, that it stopped in Afghanistan and that our only role is to be a subservient to the UN?s appeasement of itself in the face of dealing with militant Islam and nuclear proliferation.
dphantom
Diamond Member
No he didn't and we are not an ever shrinking minority. You and those like you who can see no evil in the actions of the Islamic fascists will be in the forefront crying "woe is me" when it is your family who suffers at their hands because your actions forced us to give up on this war we face for what I beleive to be the very survival of Western Civilization.
Lemon law
Lifer
Well--------if you jerks want a war with Iran---that then engulf the entire region, and then causes a world wide depression---GWB&co. may be your man.---and maybe you can get your belly full of death and destruction.---although you should have enough by now.
And then you can get all your guns and bullets and try to shoot a economic depression-----but when it comes to getting gas for your car---you and everyone else will be in the same boat.----pushing your car and walking.
Meanwhile everyone else in the world will be in the same boat---and blame the USA----and will use economic means to bring this country down.
You war mongers just don't think an inch ahead---and are just overgrown bullies with Walter Mitty delusions of grandeur.
And then you can get all your guns and bullets and try to shoot a economic depression-----but when it comes to getting gas for your car---you and everyone else will be in the same boat.----pushing your car and walking.
Meanwhile everyone else in the world will be in the same boat---and blame the USA----and will use economic means to bring this country down.
You war mongers just don't think an inch ahead---and are just overgrown bullies with Walter Mitty delusions of grandeur.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
