Is this article an example of liberal media bias?

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Rubbish. The soviets could be contained diplomatically. Despite that, i'd have less of an issue with sponsoring terrorism if the american people at large had been consulted first. However, that wasn't option. And secrecy from your own people is deplorable in any fashion--this was taxpayer money going to train these terrorists, who later went on to form Al-Qaida.

It wasn't Terrorism that brought down the soviet union. It was Capitalism the world 'round, and diplomatic pressure. Not to mention the incompetence of all the russian leaders after Stalin.

We thought they could be allies. the world is like a family comprimises have to be made and sometimes we have to bite our lip and go on. It sucks but sometimes there is just no other way

Originally Posted by Redleg:
He is confusing the support of the Afganstan Rebels against the Soviet Union with the formation of AQ. Typical logical of those who want to everything the fault of the United States

Yes, similar also to the claims Gawain likes to make about Kosovo, and the ones that folks like to make about Chechnya at the time of the first Chechen invasion.

There is a considerable difference between a freedom movement and a terrorist movement. In general terms, freedom movements will agree to a peace once they are granted some autonomy...terrorists just step up their attacks. Terrorist movements are not satisfied with establishing states, they are out for the destruction of other nations and wanton slaughter. Terrorism is essentially violent extortion and wanton destruction.

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Xihaou, for example, seems to think America's crap don't stink.

Another irrelevant conclusion. I call you on a gross distortion, therefore I think "America's crap don't stink"?

I assume you've yeilded that point since you've done nothing to back up your assertion that we "invented Al Qaeda"?

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Um, when you fight against a military, you're not a terrorist.

Yup, I think that's an important point.

An observation:

In this thread I have seen people called "traitors" and the opinions/statements of other participants in the discussion were repeatedly labeled as "rubbish" or "BS".

Especially the latter is an "phenomenon" that seems to be very common in Backroom discussions (or probably in internet discussions in general).

Personally, I think this
a) is extremely rude
b) only provokes defensive reactions from your discussion partner

I believe I am not the only one who thinks that derogative remarks are not really the most appropriate way to counter arguments

Thanks for your attention :bow:

Ser Clegane

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
We funded the Afghan's--including Osama--and gave them the capability to turn into what they are now.

Wrong. Do you have any shred of information to back that up?

"While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.

Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. Freelance cameraman Peter Jouvenal recalls: "There was no love lost between the Afghans and the Arabs. One Afghan told me, ‘Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them. They thought they were kings.'"

... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]

No doubt, we supported guerillas/insurgents/whatever who fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan. But Osama's ilk were a different matter, we had no reason, need, or interest in supporting them. Not to mention, Bin Laden wasnt set up in the country until years later. If you're trying to to say the USA shouldn't be able to have covert operations- you're entitled to have that debate. But, don't make reckless accusations.

You can't see the difference between Afghan rebels and the Afghan Arabs?

Originally Posted by Xiahou:
You can't see the difference between Afghan rebels and the Afghan Arabs?

That is what amazes me too. Zbigniew Brzezinski has admitted that the United States began supporting Afghan mujahedeen early in 1979, before the Soviet invasion, as part of a scheme to lure them into Afghanistan. The day after the Soviets took the bait, Brzezinski wrote Carter a letter in which he proposed to turn Afghanistan into the Soviets' own 'Vietnam'. The ploy was very succesful, the USSR bled to death on the Afghan poppy fields.

The collaboration between Afghan fighters and foreigners really took shape after 1989, and particularly after 1991 (Gulf War I), when Osama's outfit and the Pakistan-inspired and -financed Taleban began working together and the Arab 'Afghanistan brigade' was turned into a terrorist movement that sought targets outside Afghanistan. Even after the Taleban took power in most of Afghanistan in 1996, their relationship with most Afghan tribes remained tenuous at best. Needless to say American support had come to an end well before that time.

Well said. :bow:

I hate to drag out the Boogeyman, but this twisted line of thought (US funded Bin Laden) was made popular by Moore I think.

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
The Mujehadeen aren't the only US-Sponsored Terrorists out there, you know. Contras, anyone?

The Mujehadeen were not defined as Terrorists - that they might or might not have evolved into the Taliban and AQ does not distract from what thier initial purpose was now does it?

Blinded Idealogue statements are only that.

Now to what the Contras were or were not depends all on what side of the fence you wish to sit upon. They in essence were a mix of both, much more so then what the Mujehadeen were - The Contra's were freedom fighters because of the indengious nature of the tribes that were involved - and that they had an initial conflict with the new government in that regards. Some would also call them terrorists because of the nature of thier conflict and how they were funded, and that they used tactics very similiar to what is being used in Israel by groups such as Hamas and other such organizatins. (edited to add the last part of the last sentence.)

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Terrorists are terrorists. The Mujehadeen were no different than the Insurgency in Iraq, both in function and in purpose.

Well I don't consider the insurgency a terrorist act when they target soldiers or governmental apperatus - since that is an act of war. The Mujehadeen on its intial conception and actions was not a terrorist organization.

Your placing an idealogue arguement on an area that is not black and white - but multiple shades of grey. An insurgency by itself does not consitute terrorism.

Insurgency can cross the line into criminal acts - however that does not mean that the initial reasoning for thier actions is terrorism - but the overthrow of a regime that either was a puppet regime or one that was to hostile to the way they believed their country should be run.

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Shades of grey huh? I don't think Bush would agree with you. With us or Against us and all that.

So a nation that is invade does not have the right or the ability to have the people raise up and attempt to overthrow the puppet governement? That is what an insurgency is.

Again President Bush has his opinion I have mine. An Insurgency is just that - an uprising by the people of the occupied nation attempting to overthrow the occupying power and its puppet government. If they concentrate on the government and the military they are not terrorists by the rules of war. Now if they come from outside of the occupied nation - they take their chances on being tried as criminals and summarily executed for thier actions. Now the summary execution doesn't happen but they get to visit a tropical Island far from home.

Originally Posted by :
However, shades of grey are not acceptable. Who gets to decide what's what? People who have no business doing it, is who. People who will waste my tax dollars on crap i'd rather not have it wasted on--such as this war--is who.

So the insurgency that was done by the Mujehadeen had no business being funded by the United States - I guess you find it acceptable what the Soviet Union used on the Afganstan people during that conflict. You might want to check into what happen verus trying the tax dollar arguement here about the Mujehadeen - because what the Soviet Union did to the Afganstan people makes the United States look saintly with the Abu Graib scenerio. Your intermixing arguements concerning multiple things without any real knowledge it seems of a couple of them. Protest the war with Iraq by all means - but at least don't attempt to lump blind idealogue statements together - it makes your postion very weak, and seemly well rabid for a lack of a better term.

Using your wasting tax dollars arguement - doesn't fly either - since I could say the same thing about many of the governmental functions that I don't agree with.

Originally Posted by :
Shades of grey only come into play when you are trying to justify the whole thing. Terrorism is terrorism, and it is black and white.

Not at all - the Mujehadeen was an internal insurgency fighting against the Soviet Occupation - they fall well within the rules of war - try reading the Hague Convention some time. They fall into a shadow of grew area because the activitly recruited foreign fighters who flocked to help repel the Soviet invasion. Futhermore the shades of grey comes when one reviews some of thier actions during that conflict. Same thing can be said of the Soviet Union's actions during that conflict - using chemicals on people - you might want to look into Yellow Rain as it was used in Afganstan. You might want to check out a movie called if I remember it correctly Tank.

Then on the Contra's it consistent of many groups - at least 2 of them were legimate insurgents fighting against the government because of their own desired endstate - one which happened to be slightly against the United States - the rest well they definetly fall into several categories.

Again an insurgency does not consitute terrorist activity - nor should it always be classified as such. If your stating that - then you have no business supporting the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution - because that is exactly why it was written - for the people to be able to overthrow an oppressive government.

Originally Posted by Redleg:
You might want to check out a movie called if I remember it correctly Tank.

Are you talking about The Beast? I thought it was a really good movie- haven't seen it in years though.

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
I have no problem with insurgencies. Morally, there is always both reason to support and revile an insurgency.

And therefor you see the shade of grey that is an insurgency - which is different from what you initially stated.

Originally Posted by :
My problem is with your insistence that some deserve our support, and some don't.

My opinion is that some do deserve our support and others don't.

Originally Posted by :
Now, if the government was so honest as to say quite honestly "Alrighty--we support these guys, because it'll help us out. We don't support these ones, because we don't care. And we'll be fighting these ones because they're trouble for us." I would have less of an issue. Instead, we've got "They hate freedom!" and such BS.

Then you might want to see the number of insurgencies that are going on in the world - and the number that the United States has no involvement in. Your looking only at one it seems - the Insurgency in Iraq, which is against the United States occupation and its established local government. What about the insurgency in the Philipines which the United States supports the Philipino government in its actions? Then there is the assistance we provide to several countries in South America against their insurgencies - and a few we probably still help fund. The United States pretty much has minimual involvement in all the insurgencies in Africa, and the few that are going on in Asia.

Originally Posted by :
To recap my theme in this thread so far, it's the lack of honesty in the system that I have an issue with. From all sides.

Politics have never been honest especially when its played on a global scale between nations.

Originally Posted by Xiahou:
Are you talking about The Beast? I thought it was a really good movie- haven't seen it in years though.

Yes indeed that is the one

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Fine line. I never said that shades of grey didn't exist, I simply stated that the government does not have the right to make that determination on it's own.

Oh but it does - we granted them that power many years ago. We vote in out elected representives to represent us in Congress. So yes we did give them that power.

Originally Posted by :
Where do you draw the line? When national security is at stake? When it is crucial to winning a war? When it gets illegal money in the hands of our own government? When it advances an agenda that has never seen the light of democratic process?

Intermixing questions now are we - the answer is determined by how you feel about the circumstances. By the way support of the Mujehedeen had the support of Congress. Support of the Contra's was determined to be illegal and several individuals paid for violating the law

Originally Posted by :
You can't have the silver lining without the cloud. No matter where you draw the line, someone will bastardize it. Insurgencies and Rebellions are the most deplorable methods one can use to further an international agenda. They are not answerable to greater diplomacy, most of their actions can be hidden from the very people who's interest is supposedly being served, and--as we see today--they can and often do turn against you.

Because someone bastardizes we should withdraw and not support any group that is waging an insurgency especially if the we agree with it. Tsk Tsk

Originally Posted by :
Minimal inolvement in the insurgencies in Africa? Really? Are there not Al-Qaida connections being touted around by the whitehouse? Did we not have at least partial involvement in several of the most unjust dicatorships that now preside in Africa?

Check out our history of involvement in Africa - we are historically involved in only one nation there. THat has been the bullwark of Europe until very recently. Our one attempt at major involvement in Africa ended in failure.

Originally Posted by :
The Philipenes? You can't even begin to draw a clear picture there. The original insurgency was against the Spanish--who were most unjust to the native population. After the Spanish-American war, we fought them--much to inflamed opinion of many prominent americans. During WWII we supported them against the Japanese, and now we fight them again? Do you begin to see what i mean?

Oh I know a lot about the Philipines compared to you. Many of my friends are from their - I served with several philipinos whill in the service and have knowledge of their personal situations. Care to guess how many times that Insurgency has changed its cause to get support?

Originally Posted by :
Insurgencies do not go away, and serve nobody's interest in the long run.

Incorrect - you might want to study the history of the French Underground during WW2, Vietnam, and yes even the United States Revolutionary War. As you mention what about the efforts of the Philipino insurgency against the Japanese? Care to guess how many Japanese Divisions were tied down. Then there is the partisan effort in Europe especially in Yugoslavia - care to guess how many German Divisions that insurgency tied down during WW2. Care to guess what effect the Mujehedeen had on the Soviet Union? Care to guess the effect the Viet Cong had on the United States? You might want to read up on the Tet Offensive a little.

Originally Posted by :
As a rule, it is dirty diplomacy of the highest order to use them. Is America not supposed to be riding the white horse here? That's all you ever hear from the Whitehouse: "We're just! We're free, democratic, and correct!" Yet all I seem to hear from you guys is "Well, other people do it too."

Again your attempting to confuse the defination and the issue. Insurgency is not a dirty diplomacy - Insurgency is an upraising of the local people against what they believe to be an oppressive government or an occuping force. Some insurgencies should be support because of this reason alone - others need to be carefully looked at before deciding which way to go with it. And nice attempt to put words in my mouth so to speak. Blinded Idealogue statements are just that blinded and easy to refute. Try reading again what I have stated.

Originally Posted by :
That's no excuse. Especially considering that they could be, if the effort was put in to being the first.

Who said it was an excuse - its a statement. International Politics has never been one of honesty. Its always been about strength and getting what your nation needs out of it.

If I wanted international politics to be honest - then I would want a one-world government and give up my freedom.

Originally Posted by Redleg:
Oh but it does - we granted them that power many years ago. We vote in out elected representives to represent us in Congress. So yes we did give them that power.

I agree with Redleg here. If we have to go to a plebescite for every issue of significance we'll end up with political paralysis. I'm not saying that the electorate shouldn't be more involved and more aware -- both would help -- but we have a republic for good reasons.

Originally Posted by Redleg:
Again your attempting to confuse the defination and the issue. Insurgency is not a dirty diplomacy - Insurgency is an upraising of the local people against what they believe to be an oppressive government or an occuping force. Some insurgencies should be support because of this reason alone - others need to be carefully looked at before deciding which way to go with it. And nice attempt to put words in my mouth so to speak. Blinded Idealogue statements are just that blinded and easy to refute. Try reading again what I have stated

GC, the problem you evoke is in attempting to reconcile political realities with the ideals you express. I think it may be mixing things up and Redleg may be responding to that. To clarify, do you:

A) Oppose US support of any insurgency on the grounds that it is an internal matter of another state and that we should never participate is such.

B) Accept that we and other country's will support insurgencies in some cases and oppose others based on our national interests, but expect the government to claim that and just that when stating reasons for our support (e.g. Our goal in supporting the mujahedeen was to BLANK with the CCCP, so the Press Sec should say that in more or less those words).

C) Believe that US support for any insurgency denies us a moral right to oppose that insurgency later if it distorts into terrorism etc.

D) Believe that there exists no difference between terrorism and insurgency and that to support one is to support the other.

Not to pigeonhole you, just to get a sense of things and to see if you and Redleg are "speaking past" one another more than arguing a point.