Which country is most responsible culturally and financially for al-qaeda

[Bulk Beef]

Lost on me . . . nope, I don't speak moron but I've read enough of it on this board that I can decode written moron.

By all means, decode for me. I'd like to know what you think I was implying, since you're apparently reading something that I didn't write. Maybe you're getting confused by the avatars?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

you said,

What do you think the muj who would make up the Northern Alliance were doing before the Taliban gained control?

Umm, they were fighting one another for dominance over the opium trade and power in general. Granted, it may be inappropriate to lump Mamoud with Dostum . . . kinda like McCain with Bush. The death and destruction which exemplified the Northern Alliance before the Taliban is a reasonable summation of how they spent their time between vanquishing the Soviets to being spanked by the Taliban.

you said,

I fail to see where that contradicts the point I was making, or was that point lost on you? It wasn't that complicated.

And if you think I'm unaware of the caveman-like qualities of even our "allies" there, you are mistaken.

Let me break it down for you . . . you cannot wage a war of "good vs evil" or "right vs wrong" using evil people doing wrong things. When you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas. You appear to acknowledge the barbarism of our "allies" yet defend our association with them. That's the same kind of rank hyprocrisy that Al Qaeda directs at Arab leadership . . . one of the few elements of their philosophy that has merit.

In the final analysis, it was a series of coincidents that ultimately led to Osama's cozy relationship with the Taliban. To the contrary, it was a horrible lapse of judgment that aligned the US with the Northern Alliance in the recent past.

 

[Bulk Beef]

yet defend our association with them.

Where did I do that again? My post was a direct response to GoodToGo's statement:

Thats the first time I have ever heard anything like that.

which was, in turn, a response to etech's statement:

A large number of them ended up fighting against the Taliban and Osama.

So let me break it down for you. etech claims that "a large number" of the muj who were fighting the Soviets wind up fighting against the talibs - GTG says he's never heard that - I back up etech's claim, because it is fact, and I give GTG the names of two major NA leaders that were also major players in the fight against the Soviets. If you can show me where I defend our association with anybody, I'll eat my shoe. If you can show me where I make any implications regarding "good vs evil" or "right vs wrong", I'll eat your shoe.

And just for the record, IMO, we relied far too heavily on Afghan warlords in the fight against AQ. I felt that way in the fall of 2001, and I still feel that way. That was our fight, and the expectation that Afghans would do the job for us was misplaced.

On the other hand, I also think that claiming that "we trained and financed Osama Bin Laden" is a bit like saying that we trained Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate Kennedy.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Lost on me . . . nope, I don't speak moron but I've read enough of it on this board that I can decode written moron.

In short, the Taliban formed in 1994. Some of them were former Mujahadeen and some of the former Muhahadeen formed the Northern Alliance.

I agree with your latter sentence but the former is like saying the Republican Party didn't exist in the South until George Wallace.

Groups of taliban ("religious students") were loosely organized on a regional basis during the occupation and civil war. Although they represented a potentially huge force, they didn't as a united entity until the taliban of Kandahar made their move in 1994.

Just because the CIA lumped all Mujahideen as pawns in our surrogate war against the USSR doesn't mean they shared any other substantitive quality. By the same token, every time Bush babbles about turrurists it's abundantly clear he's clueless about the true identity of our opposition.

1995 Jane's on Arab veterans of Afghan War

Across North Africa, into the Arabian Peninsula, and even beyond into Asia, there is a new cutting edge to the Islamic revolution - hundreds of battle-hardened Muslim zealots who were once trained, armed and funded by Western agencies as well as some of the very Arab states which they now threaten. They are veterans of the long war fought by the mojahedin of Afghanistan against the regime in Kabul from 1979 to 1991.

It is the broader context that allows one to understand the various groups that evolved from the Afghan War. The generalizations that ignore this context are nothing more than hot air.

All of the Mujahadeen did not end up being terrorists though. A large number of them ended up fighting against the Taliban and Osama.

The former sentence is true but irrelevant. All of the white racists in the South did not end up being in the Klan . . . but that makes their presence no less significant. As for the latter, large number is likely your euphemism for "I don't really know how many or what proportion but I want it to sound impressive." The warlords jockeying for dominance after the Soviets bolted were not some monolithic group dedicated to peace and freedom in Afghanistan. The primary reason the Northern Alliance reconstituted in 1996 was to mount a challenge to the Taliban regime . . . which had broad popular support in Afghanistan. So the people fighting against the Taliban were arguably the "bad guys" if we use Bushspeak. Although people like Mamoud seem quite decent, Dostum and decency have never met.

But for historical clarity take note, if Sudan had not given Osama the boot . . . we would have NEVER invaded Afghanistan. My understanding is that Osama went to Afghanistan for several reasons: 1) where else could he go and 2) the Taliban (sharia brothers) were a growing influence. Osama subsequently bankrolled the Taliban push into Kabul. In the process, he became a favorite of Mullah Omar. The Taliban was quite happy running their arse backwards rock garden oasis in Central Asia, while Osama was largely free to do whatever he wanted.

So many points and a personal attack thrown in for good measure. You're in rare form BBD.

It sounds as if you approve of the Taliban and the measures they took to enforce their rule in Afghanistan.

Hitler and Stalin were also popular in their own countries. The US even sent war material to Stalin. Are you going to now condemn that action?

 

[DeeKnow]

Saudi Arabian money funded most of the training camps in Pakistan

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Lost on me . . . nope, I don't speak moron but I've read enough of it on this board that I can decode written moron.

In short, the Taliban formed in 1994. Some of them were former Mujahadeen and some of the former Muhahadeen formed the Northern Alliance.

I agree with your latter sentence but the former is like saying the Republican Party didn't exist in the South until George Wallace.

Groups of taliban ("religious students") were loosely organized on a regional basis during the occupation and civil war. Although they represented a potentially huge force, they didn't as a united entity until the taliban of Kandahar made their move in 1994.

Just because the CIA lumped all Mujahideen as pawns in our surrogate war against the USSR doesn't mean they shared any other substantitive quality. By the same token, every time Bush babbles about turrurists it's abundantly clear he's clueless about the true identity of our opposition.

1995 Jane's on Arab veterans of Afghan War

Across North Africa, into the Arabian Peninsula, and even beyond into Asia, there is a new cutting edge to the Islamic revolution - hundreds of battle-hardened Muslim zealots who were once trained, armed and funded by Western agencies as well as some of the very Arab states which they now threaten. They are veterans of the long war fought by the mojahedin of Afghanistan against the regime in Kabul from 1979 to 1991.

It is the broader context that allows one to understand the various groups that evolved from the Afghan War. The generalizations that ignore this context are nothing more than hot air.

All of the Mujahadeen did not end up being terrorists though. A large number of them ended up fighting against the Taliban and Osama.

The former sentence is true but irrelevant. All of the white racists in the South did not end up being in the Klan . . . but that makes their presence no less significant. As for the latter, large number is likely your euphemism for "I don't really know how many or what proportion but I want it to sound impressive." The warlords jockeying for dominance after the Soviets bolted were not some monolithic group dedicated to peace and freedom in Afghanistan. The primary reason the Northern Alliance reconstituted in 1996 was to mount a challenge to the Taliban regime . . . which had broad popular support in Afghanistan. So the people fighting against the Taliban were arguably the "bad guys" if we use Bushspeak. Although people like Mamoud seem quite decent, Dostum and decency have never met.

But for historical clarity take note, if Sudan had not given Osama the boot . . . we would have NEVER invaded Afghanistan. My understanding is that Osama went to Afghanistan for several reasons: 1) where else could he go and 2) the Taliban (sharia brothers) were a growing influence. Osama subsequently bankrolled the Taliban push into Kabul. In the process, he became a favorite of Mullah Omar. The Taliban was quite happy running their arse backwards rock garden oasis in Central Asia, while Osama was largely free to do whatever he wanted.

The Taliban did not have broad popular support. The Pashtuns in the south and east liked them. The Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras detested their rule from start to finish. How popular were the Taliban after they razed Herat?

And if the NA is evil because of Dostum, then doesn't that make the Taliban evil as well, since Dostum was fighting for them for part of the war?

 

[dahunan]

TWO votes for IRAQ out of a total SEVENTY TWO



2.7 percent

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: dahunan
TWO votes for IRAQ out of a total SEVENTY TWO



2.7 percent

I'm afraid a Gallup or Zogby poll would show vastly different results.

 

[Perknose]

As regards the Taliban, BaliBabyDoc has really owned this thread with his excellent factual analysis. :thumbsup:

 

[chrisms]

All of the Sept 11 hijackers, and bin Laden, are/were Saudi.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Perknose
As regards the Taliban, BaliBabyDoc has really owned this thread with his excellent factual analysis. :thumbsup:

You're kidding right, BBD used a lot of words to say exactly nothing.

The Taliban as a group formed in 1994. The Afghanis would have fought the Soviets whether the US helped them or not.

From his own link. "It is likely that there would have been Islamic eruptions whether there had been Arab veterans of the Afghan war or not."

Would you like to get into what happened in Algeria and which country's fault that mess was?

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: chrisms
All of the Sept 11 hijackers, and bin Laden, are/were Saudi.

Incorrect. One Lebanese, two UAE, Atta was Egyptian, and the rest were Saudis.. But we all know they actually were all Iraqis.

Zephyr

 

[Bulk Beef]

Originally posted by: Perknose
As regards the Taliban, BaliBabyDoc has really owned this thread with his excellent factual analysis. :thumbsup:

And piss poor reading comprehension to boot! WTG BabyDoc! :thumbsup:

 

[dahunan]

ttt

 

[dahunan]

I see someone gave a sympathy vote to Iraq since my last calculations.. I wonder who it was?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The Taliban did not have broad popular support. The Pashtuns in the south and east liked them. The Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras detested their rule from start to finish. How popular were the Taliban after they razed Herat?

I stand corrected. The Taliban did not have broad popular support . . . they just happened to have more support than the warlords/Northern Alliance.

And if the NA is evil because of Dostum, then doesn't that make the Taliban evil as well, since Dostum was fighting for them for part of the war?

Well, I think I overstated on that point as well. In truth, I don't believe in evil people. I believe all people have the capacity for good and evil acts. For instance, dropping bombs in the middle of densely populated cities . . . I think is evil. Sawing off people's heads is an evil act. Flying airplanes into buildings is an evil act. The US military is not evil but My Lai was. Our country is not evil but condoning torture is at a minimum condoning evil.

The Taliban as a group formed in 1994. The Afghanis would have fought the Soviets whether the US helped them or not.

The Taliban consolidated as a solitary group in 1994. It's comparable to how the white racists in the Democratic Party moved to the Republican Party during the 50s and 60s (they left Byrd but maybe there was a shortage of clean sheets in WV). They were fundamentally the same arseholes . . . just a change in official affiliation.

As for our participation in Afghanistan. Our fatal error was that we really didn't care if Afghanis won . . . we just wanted the Soviets to lose. It's that same lack of moral clarity that's harmed us so dearly in Iraq today.

From his own link. "It is likely that there would have been Islamic eruptions whether there had been Arab veterans of the Afghan war or not."

Uhh, yeah. So what's your point? I don't believe I ever claimed the US is MOST responsible culturally or financially for Al Qaeda. I'm definitely in the Saudi and Pakistan camp on that account. I think US foreign policy has been a boost to Al Qaeda but it is definitely a bastard child of others.

Would you like to get into what happened in Algeria and which country's fault that mess was?

If you like but the idiocy of French foreign (and domestic) policy is of little concern to me . . . except to the extent we imitate them. The French may have asked for our help in Vietnam but they knew when to hit the bricks. Some misguided souls in America (including the recently departed RWR) think Vietnam was something to be broad of. I guess he thought it was a movie.

Hell France has substantial culpability for Haiti, Cote d'Ivoire, Algeria, Vietnam, Cambodia . . . oh why bother . . . basically the French contributed to the squalor and persistent dysfunction in much of western Africa and southeast Asia. Curiously, a significant number of their fudge jobs were followed up by US BS.

 

[dahunan]

bump

 

[dahunan]

Still waiting for Iraq to catch up - what happened to the War on Terrorism?

 

[SickBeast]

It's sorta an unfair question...Afghanistan is responsible culturally (the most anyway), but Saudi Arabia is the most responsible financially. So either one of those should be the answer, but it's not cut and dry.

 

[MAW1082]

There is simply no way the United States cannot be deemed responsible for the existence of a sophisticated network of enemy insurgents.

The war between the Soviet Union and the U.S. in the mid twentieth century forced both countries to divert resources to groups with a similar enemy.

Now that the conflict has suddenly ended, the victorious group has been divided into smaller factions, with the largest being obviously the United States.

Remnants of the former 'loose coalition' of anti-communist forces are suddenly not so friendly to each other.

That is what I think we are seing today - the effects of the so-called "you're either with us oragainst us" doctrine.

 

[SickBeast]

Yeah but are we debating cause or effect? I mean, yes, Al-Quaida hates the USA because it's the USA, but that doesn't make the USA the *cause* of the network. The people who founded it are the causes, and I thought that's what we were discussing! The USA shouldn't even be on the survey!

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
It's sorta an unfair question...Afghanistan is responsible culturally (the most anyway), but Saudi Arabia is the most responsible financially. So either one of those should be the answer, but it's not cut and dry.

My main point was .... Iraq has only 3% of the vote ..

I put the US on there to appease those who were crying for it. It still doesn't change the fact that we attacked the wrong country.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: SickBeast
It's sorta an unfair question...Afghanistan is responsible culturally (the most anyway), but Saudi Arabia is the most responsible financially. So either one of those should be the answer, but it's not cut and dry.

My main point was .... Iraq has only 3% of the vote ..

I put the US on there to appease those who were crying for it. It still doesn't change the fact that we attacked the wrong country.

Of course you attacked the wrong country! I live in Canada, and the people up here were screaming across the border to let Bush know he was making a huge mistake, but the cries fell on deaf ears.

IMO he had a personal vendetta to fulfill because of his dad's unfinished business. Afghanistan should have been cleaned out and they should have killed Bin Laden at all costs. They should be devoting their entire military, intelligence, and half of the police forces to hunt down and kill all members of Al-Quaida, NOT Iraq.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: SickBeast
It's sorta an unfair question...Afghanistan is responsible culturally (the most anyway), but Saudi Arabia is the most responsible financially. So either one of those should be the answer, but it's not cut and dry.

My main point was .... Iraq has only 3% of the vote ..

I put the US on there to appease those who were crying for it. It still doesn't change the fact that we attacked the wrong country.

Of course you attacked the wrong country! I live in Canada, and the people up here were screaming across the border to let Bush know he was making a huge mistake, but the cries fell on deaf ears.

IMO he had a personal vendetta to fulfill because of his dad's unfinished business. Afghanistan should have been cleaned out and they should have killed Bin Laden at all costs. They should be devoting their entire military, intelligence, and half of the police forces to hunt down and kill all members of Al-Quaida, NOT Iraq.

Exactly.. We put TEN or TWENTY times more firepower and soldiers into Iraq than Afghanistan... amazing..

I kept asking people if all of our terror alerts were because of Saddam or because of al-qaeda.. nobody cared..

Who flew the planes
Who gave the financial support
Where was bin laden hiding
Where was bin laden training his army
Not Iraq ...

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Not Iraq ...

Actually, I read something in the paper today about a new link between Iraq and Al-Qaida, so saying there was no value in attacking Iraq is kinda pigheadded.