Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 33

Thread: How we trained al-Qa’eda

  1. #1
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default How we trained al-Qa’eda

    It was in Bosnia and Kosovo under Clinton .

    How we trained al-Qa’eda
    The Spectator ^ | 9/6/2003 | Brendan O’Neill

    Posted on 09/12/2003 12:34:22 PM PDT by JohnGalt

    How we trained al-Qa’eda 9/6/2003

    Brendan O’Neill says the Bosnian war taught Islamic terrorists to operate abroad For all the millions of words written about al-Qa’eda since the 9/11 attacks two years ago, one phenomenon is consistently overlooked — the role of the Bosnian war in transforming the mujahedin of the 1980s into the roving Islamic terrorists of today.

    Many writers and reporters have traced al-Qa’eda and other terror groups’ origins back to the Afghan war of 1979–1992, that last gasp of the Cold War when US-backed mujahedin forces fought against the invading Soviet army. It is well documented that America played a major role in creating and sustaining the mujahedin, which included Osama bin Laden’s Office of Services set up to recruit volunteers from overseas. Between 1985 and 1992, US officials estimate that 12,500 foreign fighters were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and guerrilla warfare tactics in Afghan camps that the CIA helped to set up.

    Yet America’s role in backing the mujahedin a second time in the early and mid-1990s is seldom mentioned — largely because very few people know about it, and those who do find it prudent to pretend that it never happened. Following the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 and the collapse of their puppet regime in 1992, the Afghan mujahedin became less important to the United States; many Arabs, in the words of the journalist James Buchan, were left stranded in Afghanistan ‘with a taste for fighting but no cause’. It was not long before some were provided with a new cause. From 1992 to 1995, the Pentagon assisted with the movement of thousands of mujahedin and other Islamic elements from Central Asia into Europe, to fight alongside Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs.

    The Bosnia venture appears to have been very important to the rise of mujahedin forces, to the emergence of today’s cross-border Islamic terrorists who think nothing of moving from state to state in the search of outlets for their jihadist mission. In moving to Bosnia, Islamic fighters were transported from the ghettos of Afghanistan and the Middle East into Europe; from an outdated battleground of the Cold War to the major world conflict of the day; from being yesterday’s men to fighting alongside the West’s favoured side in the clash of the Balkans. If Western intervention in Afghanistan created the mujahedin, Western intervention in Bosnia appears to have globalised it.

    As part of the Dutch government’s inquiry into the Srebrenica massacre of July 1995, Professor Cees Wiebes of Amsterdam University compiled a report entitled ‘Intelligence and the War in Bosnia’, published in April 2002. In it he details the secret alliance between the Pentagon and radical Islamic groups from the Middle East, and their efforts to assist Bosnia’s Muslims. By 1993, there was a vast amount of weapons- smuggling through Croatia to the Muslims, organised by ‘clandestine agencies’ of the USA, Turkey and Iran, in association with a range of Islamic groups that included Afghan mujahedin and the pro-Iranian Hezbollah. Arms bought by Iran and Turkey with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia were airlifted from the Middle East to Bosnia — airlifts with which, Wiebes points out, the USA was ‘very closely involved’.

    The Pentagon’s secret alliance with Islamic elements allowed mujahedin fighters to be ‘flown in’, though they were initially reserved as shock troops for particularly hazardous operations against Serb forces. According to a report in the Los Angeles Times in October 2001, from 1992 as many as 4,000 volunteers from the Middle East, North Africa and Europe, ‘known as the mujahedin’, arrived in Bosnia to fight with the Muslims. Richard Holbrooke, America’s former chief Balkans peace negotiator, has said that the Bosnian Muslims ‘wouldn’t have survived’ without the help of the mujahedin, though he later admitted that the arrival of the mujahedin was a ‘pact with the devil’ from which Bosnia is still recovering.

    By the end of the 1990s State Department officials were increasingly worried about the consequences of this pact. Under the terms of the 1995 Dayton peace accord, the foreign mujahedin units were required to disband and leave the Balkans. Yet in 2000, the State Department raised concerns about the ‘hundreds of foreign Islamic extremists’ who became Bosnian citizens after fighting against the Serbs, and who pose a potential terror threat to Europe and the United States. US officials claimed that one of bin Laden’s top lieutenants had sent operatives to Bosnia, and that during the 1990s Bosnia had served as a ‘staging area and safe haven’ for al-Qa’eda and others. The Clinton administration had discovered that it is one thing to permit the movement of Islamic groups across territories; it is quite another to rein them back in again.

    Indeed, for all the Clinton officials’ concern about Islamic extremists in the Balkans, they continued to allow the growth and movement of mujahedin forces in Europe through the 1990s. In the late 1990s, in the run-up to Clinton’s and Blair’s Kosovo war of 1999, the USA backed the Kosovo Liberation Army against Serbia. According to a report in the Jerusalem Post in 1998, KLA members, like the Bosnian Muslims before them, had been ‘provided with financial and military support from Islamic countries’, and had been ‘bolstered by hundreds of Iranian fighters or mujahedin ...[some of whom] were trained in Osama bin Laden’s terrorist camps in Afghanistan’. It seems that, for all its handwringing, the USA just couldn’t break the pact with the devil.

    Why is this aspect of the mujahedin’s development so often overlooked? Some sensible stuff has been written about al-Qa’eda and its connections in recent months, but the Bosnia connection has been left largely unexplored. In Jason Burke’s excellent Al-Qa’eda: Casting a Shadow of Terror, Bosnia is mentioned only in passing. Kimberley McCloud and Adam Dolnik of the Monterey Institute of International Studies have written some incisive commentary calling for rational thinking when assessing al-Qa’eda’s origins and threat — but again, investigation of the Bosnia link is notable by its absence.

    It would appear that when it comes to Bosnia, many in the West have a moral blind spot. For some commentators, particularly liberal ones, Western intervention in Bosnia was a Good Thing — except that, apparently, there was too little of it, offered too late in the conflict. Many journalists and writers demanded intervention in Bosnia and Western support for the Muslims. In many ways, this was their war, where they played an active role in encouraging further intervention to enforce ‘peace’ among the former Yugoslavia’s warring factions. Consequently, they often overlook the downside to this intervention and its divisive impact on the Balkans. Western intervention in Bosnia, it would appear, has become an unquestionably positive thing, something that is beyond interrogation and debate.

    Yet a cool analysis of today’s disparate Islamic terror groups, created in Afghanistan and emboldened by the Bosnian experience, would do much to shed some light on precisely the dangers of such intervention.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  2. #2
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Heres more on the wrong war for the wrong reasons.

    Which Terrorists Are Worse?
    Al Qaeda? Or the KLA?
    by Jared Israel
    [Posted 12 December 2001]
    =======================================
    Slobodan Milosevic, the kidnapped former President of Yugoslavia, appeared before The Hague 'Tribunal' yesterday. (1)

    "Asked how he pleaded to the charges, guilty or not guilty, Mr. Milosevic reacted like his old defiant self and said: 'This miserable text is the ultimate absurdity. I should be given credit for peace in Bosnia, not war.' Responsibility for the Bosnian war, he went on, 'lies with the Western powers that broke up Yugoslavia and their Yugoslav agents.' Because he failed to respond with a plea, the court entered a plea of not guilty... (1)

    "The charges against him in Kosovo, he said, 'will inevitably open up the issue of the Clinton administration's cooperation with the terrorists in Kosovo, including the bin Laden organization.' He was referring to ethnic Albanian rebels of the Kosovo Liberation Army who, he contends, attacked Serbian forces with help from foreign Islamic militants." ('N.Y. Times,' 12/12/01 * Note: the 'Times' uses the term Islamic, meaning Muslim, when it should use 'Islamist,' meaning Muslim clerical-fascists.)

    The charge for which Milosevic has been tried and convicted in the Western press is that he suppressed a popular movement using brutal methods. (2)

    But what if they lied to us about Kosovo and Milosevic, just as they lied to us about the bombing of the Red Cross, or that bin Laden was fighting the CIA throughout the 1990s? What if in fact Yugoslavia used relatively humane methods to fight the U.S.-supported secessionists in Kosovo - which by the way is the oldest part of Serbia. What if this contrasts favorably with the tactics employed by the U.S. in Afghanistan - which is not part of the U.S.A.? (3)

    What if the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) is a terrorist organization, created by the USA and Germany, trained by U.S. and British covert forces, installed in power in Kosovo as a proxy force for NATO?

    What if hundreds of thousands of Serbs, 'Gypsies,' Slavic Muslims, Turks, non-fascist Albanians and Jews have been driven from the province by the KLA - with NATO's apparent approval? (4)

    These are the issues Milosevic promises to expose.

    We have posted evidence of the KLA's ties to Osama bin Laden's terrorists. (5)

    New evidence emerged today. We are informed that an Australian, captured in Afghanistan, had previously fought for the KLA, then went for training with al Qaeda in Pakistan, and ended up a Taliban soldier. (http://au.news.yahoo.com/011212/2/1onh.html )

    But the KLA is terrorist regardless of its links to al Qaeda. The evidence is overwhelming. Consider, for example, the case of Mr. Ramush Haradinaj.

    According to a December 4th BBC report, Mr. Haradinaj, who leads the so-called Democratic League of Kosova (sic!) or LDK, has been meeting with leaders of the Alliance for the Future of Kosova (also sic!) to plan a 'broad based' government in the province. (Why did I put 'sic!' after 'Kosova'? See footnote 6 )

    Who is Ramush Haradinaj?
    LINK
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  3. #3
    Nobody expects the Senior Member Lemur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin Death Trip
    Posts
    15,754

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Well, if we're going to take anybody's word it should be Slobo's ...

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them ... well, I have others." — Groucho Marx

  4. #4
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Typical right wing revisionist history. It is scary watching you take sides with Milosevic, completely destroys my opinion of you.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  5. #5
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Typical right wing revisionist history. It is scary watching you take sides with Milosevic, completely destroys my opinion of you.
    Now now there you go again accusing me of things I didnt say. I have always stated that both sides had behaved abombitably here. Its scary watching you defend terrorists.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  6. #6
    Member Member bmolsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Posts
    3,029

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Does it matter who trained them ? Isn't it more important to get rid off them...

  7. #7
    Senior Member Senior Member Idaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Exeter, England
    Posts
    6,519

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Hang on - I thought Gawain didn't accept that the US was responsible for any of the acts of terrorism? Now it's only Clinton?

    You really are a walking, talking tedium machine Gawain.
    "The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney

  8. #8
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Hang on - I thought Gawain didn't accept that the US was responsible for any of the acts of terrorism? Now it's only Clinton?
    I didnt say its only Clinton. It seems I may have been wrong. The more I study this issue the more disturbing it gets. Its seems we really are confilcted here.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  9. #9
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    I suggest looking into the Iran-Contra affair, and the several accounts of the US selling drugs for under-the-table funds. It'll shake your faith.
    I find that far less disturbing than Bosnia and Kosovo. I dont know why we backed these guys. It made sense in Afghanistan and in Iran but this makes no sense at all.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  10. #10
    Corporate Hippie Member rasoforos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    2,713

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    I have been talking about how the US used to use AL Qaeda for years in this forum. It no wonder the news always keep this part of history hidden by the common views.

    Especially in the US the government is always trying to make things apear like there is a 'good guy' and a 'bad guy', Europe is not innocent either. In the war in Bosnia there wasnt one bad guy, all three nations hated eachothers guts. It never was about the Bad Serbs attacking the rest, all of em were attacking eachother and all of em commited war crimes. Al Qaeda presence there, acting agaisnt Serbs and Croats can only give us an idea of what had happened. However some nations needed to interfere and someone 'bad' was needed...This is not of course to say that anyone was innocent and didnt commit war crimes on that war.

    Of course the US administrations never seized to use dictatorships and terrorists to do their job. They just ditched Al Qaeda and Saddam for others.

    By the way, isnt the acceptance of Al Qaeda working for the US an acceptance of the US siding with terrorism. Doesnt that make you part of the Axis of evil? Shouldnt the people who masterminded Al Qaeda cooperation like Mrs Allbright be brought to justice? Of course it will never happen, it would create a precedent...



    P.S:

    To see more about news you never get to hear try to find the percentage of Serbs and Albanians before and after in Kossovo. Why dont the news tell us that ethnic cleansing there DID happen? The other way around....
    Αξιζει φιλε να πεθανεις για ενα ονειρο, κι ας ειναι η φωτια του να σε καψει.

    http://grumpygreekguy.tumblr.com/

  11. #11
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    By the way, isnt the acceptance of Al Qaeda working for the US an acceptance of the US siding with terrorism. Doesnt that make you part of the Axis of evil? Shouldnt the people who masterminded Al Qaeda cooperation like Mrs Allbright be brought to justice? Of course it will never happen, it would create a precedent...



    P.S:

    To see more about news you never get to hear try to find the percentage of Serbs and Albanians before and after in Kossovo. Why dont the news tell us that ethnic cleansing there DID happen? The other way around....

    I never thought Id be agreeing with you on this topic but it seems youve been correct all along. "passes the spliff to rasoforos"
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  12. #12
    Corporate Hippie Member rasoforos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    2,713

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Gawain of Orkeny May we agree more often
    Αξιζει φιλε να πεθανεις για ενα ονειρο, κι ας ειναι η φωτια του να σε καψει.

    http://grumpygreekguy.tumblr.com/

  13. #13

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    The more I study this issue the more disturbing it gets.
    Welcome to the world Gawain , a planet full of disturbing and confusing issues .

    So , any thoughts..... who are last weeks terrorists who are todays freedom fighters and who are todays freedom fighters who are next weeks terrorists ?
    Oh there are just so many to choose from

  14. #14
    Shadow Senior Member Kagemusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Helsinki,Finland
    Posts
    9,546

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Quote Originally Posted by Tribesman
    The more I study this issue the more disturbing it gets.
    Welcome to the world Gawain , a planet full of disturbing and confusing issues .

    So , any thoughts..... who are last weeks terrorists who are todays freedom fighters and who are todays freedom fighters who are next weeks terrorists ?
    Oh there are just so many to choose from
    Read my 5 cents from My opinion on Iraq thread what do you think about my idea about terrorism?
    Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Quote Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
    I find that far less disturbing than Bosnia and Kosovo. I dont know why we backed these guys.
    As a peacemonger, I was against the Kosovo intervention and am still ambivalent about it. The second article you cite seems very suspect - the author explicitly supports Milosovecic and condemns NATO. But I think the first article you cite has a point - NATO intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo was an emotional reaction. The UN had been playing softball with the Serbs in Bosnia for five years or so, and what had it got? The humiliation of Srebrenica - reputedly the worst single atrocity in Europe since WW2. And no, the Muslims in Bosnia were not mainly AQ types and yes, the Serbs were definitely the aggressors in that fight. Finally, US patience ran out - by backing the Croat army and bombing, the US forced the Serbs to the negotiating table in Bosnia and ended the nightmare there.

    When Milosvecic started to look like he was going to repeat the same process in Kosovo, NATO played hardball again and Milosvecic's humiliation led to his overthrow by pro-democracy supporters in Serbia. Yes, the Balkans is still far from perfect but it seems much improved now compared to what it was ten years ago before the US got tough.

    Now, the first article you cite is probably right. America's curbing of the Serbs did entail backing some shady characters - the Croats themselves were no angels and their offensive that ended the Bosnian war led to massive ethnic cleansing of Krajina. The KLA were probably worse. But the article does not produce firm evidence to show that AQ in particular benefited from US support. The term "Muhjadin", as in Afghanistan, covers a multitude of groups, not necessarily AQ. The article mentions some were backed by Iran - I doubt OBL was working with Iran-backed groups at this time (the whole Sunni-Shiite thing). It mentions others supported by Saudi Arabia - a country, OBL was trying to overthrow at the time. And I have not seen reports of many Bosnian or Kosovar members of AQ or the Iraq insurgency. Had the Serbs been given free reign in the second half of the 1990s, I rather suspect we would...

  16. #16
    Member Member sharrukin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Canada west coast
    Posts
    2,276

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
    The UN had been playing softball with the Serbs in Bosnia for five years or so, and what had it got? The humiliation of Srebrenica - reputedly the worst single atrocity in Europe since WW2.
    No, actually the single worst atrocity in Europe since World War Two was committed by the United States, Germany, and Croatia in the Krajina where 200,000 Serbs were driven from their homes and 15-20,000 of them murdered.

    http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpo...krajina95.html

    In April, 1993 just after Clinton’s inauguration, Europeans ask US to help support the Owen-Vance agreement. Clinton however refused to support Owen-Vance proposal because it rewarded ethnic cleansing, and gave Bosnian Serbs more land than was proportionate to their population. Without US support, it dies. Clinton then goes on to support ethnic cleansing in the Krajina offensive.

    Authored by Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance this plan was better than what the Dayton accords would eventually be, and would have saved thousands of lives if acted upon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
    Finally, US patience ran out - by backing the Croat army and bombing, the US forced the Serbs to the negotiating table in Bosnia and ended the nightmare there.
    The Croat offensive succeeded in driving 200,000 Serb civilians from their homes and land, the greatest single act of ethnic cleansing since the war began. The Krajina offensive was followed by NATO air attacks on the Bosnian Serbs, which inflicted hundreds of casualties and widespread damage to Serb towns and villages. Carried out under the pretense of defending the UN "safe areas," the NATO bombing raids provided air cover for a joint offensive by the armies of Croatia and the Bosnian Moslem regime. This campaign drove another 100,000 Bosnian Serb civilians out of northwest Bosnia.

    Well, is ethnic cleansing acceptable as long as our proxies are doing the 'cleansing'?
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
    -- John Stewart Mills

    But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason.
    LORD ACTON

  17. #17

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Well, is ethnic cleansing acceptable as long as our proxies are doing the 'cleansing'?
    Of course it is , just call it population redistribution . It sounds more pleasant .

  18. #18
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Sharrukin, if you read my post carefully, you'll see I noted the massive ethnic cleansing of Krajina and said Srebenica was the largest "single" atrocity (an offensive is not a "single" atrocity). So I am not sure we disagree as much as you seem to think.

    But if you want to argue the point - where do you get your figure 15-20,000 dead in Krajina from? The British newspaper reports you linked to did not mention it. I have not heard that the Croat leadership organised mass executions of hundreds of prisoners as the Serbs did at Srebrenica, although I know individual acts of barbarism were conducted by all sides on a large scale during the conflict.

    As I said, I'm no fan of the Croat government of that period. (By contrast, I have a lot of sympathy for the Bosnian leadership.) Nor do I support ethnic cleansing.

    But I am afraid I regard the Croat offensive in Krajina rather as I do the Red Army advance into eastern Germany in 1945. What comes around, goes around.

  19. #19
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    I hope this works . Its my bigggest cut and paste ever and Im getting more pissed and confused the more I study this matter.

    Congressman: U.S. Set Up Anti-Taliban to be Slaughtered
    * Excerpts from a most revealing hearing
    * Comments by Jared Israel [posted 16 October 2001]
    ========================================

    "At a time when the Taliban were vulnerable, the top person of this administration, Mr. Inderfurth, and Bill Richardson, personally went to Afghanistan and convinced the anti-Taliban forces not to go on the offensive and, furthermore, convinced all of the anti-Taliban forces, their supporters, to disarm them and to cease their flow of support for the anti-Taliban forces. At that same moment, Pakistan initiated a major resupply effort, which eventually saw the defeat, and caused the defeat, of almost all of the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan.

    "Now, with a history like that, it's very hard, Mr. Ambassador, for me to sit here and listen to someone say, "Our main goal is to drain the swamp" -- and the swamp is Afghanistan -- because the United States created that swamp in Afghanistan. And the United States' policies have undercut those efforts to create a freer and more open society in Afghanistan, which is consistent with the beliefs of the Afghan people." Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, lambasting the U.S. State Department at Congressional hearings 12 July 2000. Excerpts from those hearings are posted after these comments.

    On July 12, 2000 a U.S. Congressional Committee held hearings that turned into a knockdown drag out fight over Washington's role in Afghanistan.

    Rep. Dana Rohrabacher accused the U.S. State Department of treachery and hypocrisy. He presented evidence that:

    1. The U.S. deliberately sent 'humanitarian aid' only to Taliban-controlled areas;
    2. The U.S. State Department refused to act on information concerning the location of Osama bin Laden's headquarters in Afghanistan.
    3. U.S. officials tricked the Anti-Taliban opposition into disarming, though the officials knew Pakistan was airlifting weapons to the Taliban. This allowed the Taliban to wipe out most of the opposition forces.

    Below I have posted excerpts from that hearing. As you will see, the two U.S. State Department officials, Mr. Eastham and Mr. Sheehan, and their congressional supporters, never answered Rep. Rohrabacher's charges. Rohrabacher listed specific acts of treachery. Eastham, Sheehan and their supporters dodged and responded with noble generalities.

    This is important stuff. By definition, when a government engages in covert support of terrorist forces it does so to hide its real policy, and so of course the real policy is hard to expose. As Rep. Rohrabacher commented at the end of the hearing.

    "You know, I am the only one here [making these accusations]. I am not the chairman of the committee. I would never get the opportunity to have a back and forth with you [people from the State Department], except in times like this." [From hearing, posted below]

    Because he charged the U.S. State Department with pretending to oppose bin Laden and the Taliban while actually secretly supporting them, and because the State Department officials were manifestly unable to answer his charges, and because the whole thing was recorded and transcribed, Rohrabacher gave us a strong piece of documented evidence that during the 1990s, the actual U.S. policy was to support Islamist terrorism.

    A note on Representative Rohrabacher: By posting this material we are not endorsing the Congressman or his current actions. In our opinion, Rep. Rohrabacher did the world the service of exposing State Department duplicity not because he opposed US interference in Afghanistan, during the 1980s and 1990s, but because he wanted the U.S. to meddle in a different way. While the U.S. was openly financing the worst Islamist terrorists, and, later, secretly supporting the Taliban, Rep. Rohrabacher was close to the former Afghan King. Now that his King has gained more influence, Rep. Rohrabacher has altered his criticisms of U.S. policy. He used to say the U.S. actively hurt Afghanistan. Now he says:

    "We thought just forcing the Russians out and supporting the Afghans in their fight against Soviet domination was the end of story. But it wasn't, obviously. We did not do, as far as I'm concerned, our responsibility to the Afghan people. We left them asleep in their own rubble and left them to suffer. And what emerged? The Taliban emerged. What emerged after that? Bin Laden." (CNN SUNDAY MORNING, 07:00, September 30, 2001)

    This is a complete change from the much more honest criticism you will find below: namely, that the U.S. actively fostered the rise of the Taliban and refused to go after bin Laden, even when the information regarding bin Laden and the Taliban came from Mr. Rohrabacher and his Afghan friends. Thus he charged Washington with having a policy of arrogant interference, treachery and hypocrisy. During the hearing, quoted below, Mr. Rohrabacher said: "The United States created that swamp in Afghanistan." A far cry from "We left them asleep in their own rubble and left them to suffer."

    It appears that Dana Rohrabacher has made his peace with the State Department.

    Note: I have included a few comments in brackets by way of connecting the excerpts. If you prefer to read the full text (rather than excerpts) it is posted at http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/rohrfull.htm

    -- Jared Israel

    July 12, 2000
    Hearing Of the House International Relations Committee on "Global Terrorism And South Asia."

    Chaired By: Representative Benjamin Gilman (R-NY)

    Witnesses: Michael Sheehan, State Department Coordinator For Counterterrorism; Alan Eastham, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary Of State For South Asian Affairs

    [Emperor's Clothes note: Shortly after the hearing started, Rep. Rohrabacher heated things up by attacking U.S. policy in Afghanistan, head on:]

    REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank you very much for holding this hearing.

    As we discuss terrorism in South Asia, I think it is important to renew the members of this committee's and the public's acquaintance with the request that I have made for the last three years concerning American policy toward the Taliban, because as we examine -- as we examine terrorism in South Asia, one can't help but recognize that if it weren't for the fact that the Taliban are in power, there would be a different equation going on.

    It would be whole different situation in South Asia.

    After a year of requesting to see State Department documents on Afghan policy -- and I would remind the committee that I have -- I have stated that I believe that there is a covert policy by this administration, a shameful covert policy of supporting the Taliban -- the State Department, after many, many months -- actually, years -- of prodding, finally began giving me documents, Mr. Chairman. And I have, in the assessment of those documents, I have found nothing to persuade me that I was wrong in my criticism. And I might add, however, that there has been no documents provided to me, even after all of these years of requesting it, there have been no documents concerning the time period of the formation of the Taliban. And I would, again, I would hope that the State Department gets the message that I expect to see all those documents. And the documents that I have read, Mr. Chairman, indicate that the State Department, time and again, has had as its position that they have no quarrel, or that it would give them no heartburn, to have the Taliban in power. This, during the time period when the Taliban was struggling to take over Afghanistan.

    And although the administration has denied supporting the Taliban, it is clear that they discouraged all of the anti-Taliban supporters from supporting the efforts in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. Even so much as when the Taliban was ripe for being defeated on the ground in Afghanistan, Bill Richardson and Rick Inderfurth, high-ranking members of this administration, personally visited the region in order to discourage the Taliban's opposition from attacking the Taliban when they were vulnerable, and then going to neighboring countries to cut off any type of military assistance to the [opponents of the] Taliban. This, at a time when Pakistan was heavily resupplying and rearming the Taliban.

    What did this lead to? It led to the defeat of all of the Taliban's major enemies except for one, Commander Massoud, in the north, and left the Taliban the supreme power in Afghanistan.

    So what we hear today about terrorism and crocodile tears from this administration, let us remember this administration is responsible for the Taliban. This administration has acted in a way that has kept the Taliban in power.

    One last note. Many people here understand that I have been in Afghanistan on numerous occasions and have close ties to people there. And let me just say that some of my sources of information informed me of where bin Laden was, they told me they knew and could tell people where bin Laden could be located. And it took me three times before this administration responded to someone who obviously has personal contacts in Afghanistan, to even investigate that there might be someone who could give them the information. And when my contact was actually contacted, they said that the people who contacted them were half-hearted, did not follow through, did not appear to be all that interested, appeared to be forced to be talking to him.



    [Emperor's Clothes note: Rep. Bonior attempted to rebut Rohrabacher's charges. Note that this gentleman speaks entirely in generalities:]

    REP. DAVID E. BONIOR (D-MI): On earlier occasions, the administration has expressed the importance of working with Pakistan in addressing terrorism in South Asia. I also believe that cooperation with Pakistan continues to be very much in our national interest. Combating and preventing global terrorism is one of the most serious challenges facing America's foreign policy in this new era.

    It is my belief, Mr. Chairman, that Pakistan, as a long-standing ally of the United States, is committed to cooperating with the United States on terrorism. Its record shows that. Sanctioning Pakistan will serve no purpose other than to isolate them and aggravate the social and economic and political challenges in the region.

    I also strongly believe that the Taliban support for terrorism, and its harboring of Osama bin Laden, must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. We must also respond to the threat, and I believe that is where Pakistan plays a very critical role. We must remember that it is not in Pakistan's interest to have the Taliban on its border. It is also not in Pakistan's interest to have terrorist groups operating within its borders. And it is clearly not in India's interest to have Pakistan isolated, thereby producing a greater threat to peace and stability in South Asia….

    I know from my talks with General Musharraf, when I visited Pakistan and India in April, that he is committed to dealing with the Taliban. He has met with one leader of the Taliban and is prepared to meet with others in Afghanistan. Throughout my trip, I gained a new appreciation of the new challenges facing the region. I also came away, more convinced than ever, that the United States must play a proactive role in helping to meet those challenges.

    There are serious challenges and threats, which exist in Pakistan. But I also know that General Musharraf and General Aziz (sp), in Pakistan, are well aware of what needs to be done.



    [Emperor's Clothes note: Shortly after this, Michael Sheehan, the State Department Coordinator For Counterterrorism and Alan Eastham, Jr., the Deputy Assistant Secretary Of State For South Asian Affairs spoke. However, they also talked in generalities. Following there remarks REP. GEJDENSON spoke, ending with the following heated exchange:]

    REP. GEJDENSON: …One last thing. Are there any countries supplying weapons to the Taliban at this point?

    MR. SHEEHAN [from State Dep't]: I think I'll have to go in closed session on that as well, Mr. Congressman. I'm not -- what I know about that is from classified sources. I'll be glad to talk to you about it after this.

    REP. GEJDENSON: Thank you. You might check with Mr. Rohrabacher for any other information you need on Afghanistan -- (laughter). He seems to be very knowledgeable about the military situation there.

    REP. GILMAN: Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Rohrabacher?

    REP. ROHRABACHER: (Laughing.) This is a joke! I mean, you have to go to closed session to tell us where the weapons are coming from? Well, how about let's make a choice. There's Pakistan or Pakistan or Pakistan. (Laughs.) Where do you think the Taliban -- right as we speak -- I haven't read any classified documents. Everybody in the region knows that Pakistan is involved with a massive supply of military weapons and has been since the very beginning of the Taliban.

    Let me just state for the record, here, before I get into my questions, that I think there's -- and it's not just you, Mr. Ambassador, but it is this administration and, perhaps, other administrations as well. I do not believe that terrorism flows from a lack of state control. A breakdown of state control, all of sudden you have terrorism. That's not what causes terrorism. What causes terrorism is a lack of freedom and democracy, a lack of a means to solve one's problems through a democratic process.

    Afghanistan, from the very beginning, we have been -- when the Reagan administration was involved with helping the Afghans fight the Russians, which was engaged in trying to put a totalitarian government there -- because of Pakistan's insistence, a lion's share of our support went to a guy named Hekmatyar Gulbuddin, who had no democratic tendencies whatsoever. And since the Russians lost, we have not been supporting, the United States has not been supporting any type of somewhat free, somewhat democratic alternatives in Afghanistan, and there are such alternatives, and we all -- those of us who have been involved know that.

    So there's no democracy or freedom in Afghanistan, where people who are good and decent and courageous people, have a chance to cleanse their society of the drug dealers and the fanatics that torture and repress, especially the women of Afghanistan. But the men of Afghanistan are not fanatics like the Taliban, either. They would like to have a different regime. Only the United States has given -- and I again make this charge -- the United States has been part and parcel to supporting the Taliban all along, and still is let me add. But you don't have any type of democracy in Afghanistan.

    …Let me note that, three years ago, I tried to arrange support, aid, humanitarian aid, to a non-Taliban-controlled section of Afghanistan, the Bamian area. Mr. Chairman, the State Department did everything they could to thwart these humanitarian medical supplies from going into Bamian. And we heard today that we are very proud that we are still giving aid to Afghanistan. Let me note; that aid has always gone to Taliban areas. So what message does that send to people of Afghanistan? We have been supporting the Taliban, because all our aid goes to the Taliban areas. And when people from the outside try to put aid into areas not controlled by the Taliban, they are thwarted by our own State Department.

    And let me just note that that same area, Bamian, where I tried to help those people who are opposed to the Taliban; Bamian now is the headquarters of Mr. Bin Laden. Surprise, surprise! Everyone in this committee has heard me, time and again over the years, say, unless we did something, Afghanistan was going to become a base for terrorism and drug dealing. And, Mr. Chairman, how many times did you hear me say that this administration either ignored that or -- a part of the problem, rather than part of the solution?

    Again, let me just -- I am sorry Mr. Inderfurth is not here to defend himself -- but let me state for the record: At a time when the Taliban were vulnerable, the top person of this administration, Mr. Inderfurth, and Bill Richardson, personally went to Afghanistan and convinced the anti-Taliban forces not to go on the offensive and, furthermore, convinced all of the anti-Taliban forces, their supporters, to disarm them and to cease their flow of support for the anti-Taliban forces. At that same moment, Pakistan initiated a major resupply effort, which eventually saw the defeat, and caused the defeat, of almost all of the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan.

    Now, with a history like that, it's very hard, Mr. Ambassador, for me to sit here and listen to someone say, "Our main goal is to drain the swamp" -- and the swamp is Afghanistan -- because the United States created that swamp in Afghanistan. And the United States' policies have undercut those efforts to create a freer and more open society in Afghanistan, which is consistent with the beliefs of the Afghan people.



    REP. GILMAN: Did the panelists want to respond at all?

    MR. SHEEHAN: I would, Mr. Congressman.

    REP. GILMAN: Ambassador Sheehan.

    MR. SHEEHAN: First of all, Mr. Congressman, I'm sorry that you think it's a joke that I won't respond on the issue of support for the arms for the Taliban, but the information that I have, which is -- I cannot respond by public source -- is based on intelligence methods, and I don't have the authority to speak about that in this session. But I'll be glad to talk to you or anybody else afterwards.

    Secondly, regarding the responsibility the United States government has for Afghanistan and the situation there, I don't accept that conclusion at all. The United States did help participate in helping the mujaheddin reject the Soviet occupation in the mid-'80s, and that was a policy that I think was a correct one at that time. The situation in Afghanistan, the deterioration of that state since 1979, has primarily to do with the situation in Afghanistan. Certainly there were those responsible, whether it was the Soviet occupiers or those who were involved in a civil war that has waged there for 20 years. But the idea that the United States government is responsible for everything in Afghanistan I think is not true.

    And the idea that we support the Taliban I also reject as well completely. I have spent 18 months in this job leading the effort within the United States government and around the world to bring pressure on the Taliban. After the bombing of the embassies in East Africa, when I got hired for this job, I have made it my sole effort, my primary effort in this job to bring pressure on that regime. And the United States government leads that effort in providing pressure on that regime. My office leads that effort within the United States government. We started with an executive order in August of 1999 that brought sanctions to bear on the Taliban. We've led the effort in the U.N. to bring international sanctions against them. We're also leading the effort internationally right now to look at further measures against the Taliban. It's the United States government that is leading that effort -- we're ahead of everybody else -- to bring pressure on the Taliban. And the Taliban knows it, and those other member states within the U.N. and other -- the other community knows our efforts to bring pressure to bear on that organization because of its support for state -- for terrorism.

    REP. GILMAN: Thank you.

    Mr. Eastham, did you want to comment?

    MR. EASTHAM: Yes, sir, I would. I would be happy to defend Mr. Inderfurth, if you'd like, Mr. Rohrabacher, even if he's not here in person.

    I would just note that I have spent nearly 15 years of my life working on this part of the world. I was with the mujaheddin in Peshar [Pakistan!] from 1984 to 1987. I was in the consulate in Peshar at that time. I've been back on this account now for -- I began my sixth year on the South Asia account this time, around this week. I was in Pakistan when you were trying your effort to put -- the airdrop assistance into Bamian. So I'm quite familiar with the history of the whole episode. And I can say that at no point -- at no point -- in the last six years has the United States of America offered its support to the Taliban.

    This is why I think that despite the fact we've provided you nearly a thousand documents in response to the request of the chairman, that you haven't been able to find the support for the Taliban, because it isn't there.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: That is incorrect, by the way. And I will say that for the record. That is incorrect. I have found several references. And documents have been kept from me indicating what our policy formation about the Taliban has been. So that is not accurate.

    MR. EASTHAM: Well, we have a fundamental difference of opinion, then, about the record of what this administration has done with respect to the Taliban.

    But I will say that we have -- that our goals with respect to the Taliban have shifted over the past two years, almost, since the East Africa bombings. When the Taliban first came into power in Afghanistan, we had an agenda which addressed terrorism, narcotics, human rights, including the rights of women, and bringing peace to Afghanistan. We tried to address all of those at the same time.

    After the East Africa bombing, the terrorism problem became much more acute and a much higher priority in terms of our -- in terms of what we were doing. But we've been addressing all these issues since the first day the Taliban came into being, and particularly since they came to power in Kabul.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.



    [TENC note: Rohrabacher replied:]

    REP. ROHRABACHER: All right.

    Let me just say that, in your denials to the charges that I made, you were very good at general denials. But there was no denial of some specific charges, so I'd like to ask you about them now.

    I charged that the aid that the United States has been giving has been going to the Taliban-controlled territories, especially during that time period when one-third of Afghanistan was being controlled by non- and anti-Taliban forces. Specifically, I used the example of the Bamian effort in which we tried to help the folks down there, who my sources said were in great deprivation and starving, and the State Department undermined that effort.

    And we mentioned earlier there is an aid program going on to Afghanistan. Ten percent of Afghanistan is still controlled by anti- Taliban forces. Is any of the aid that we are giving going to this anti-Taliban area?



    MR. EASTHAM: The answer to the question is, yes, there is aid flowing to all areas in Afghanistan. That is a function, however, of accessibility, of how you get it to them. There is assistance, which flows through the United Nations who are the implementers of the program, into the North, via Tajikistan, and also through the Chitral area of Pakistan --

    REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay. Okay. So --

    MR. EASTHAM: -- as well as to the 80 percent of the country.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: -- okay. So your answer is yes, that currently that one area in the Panjshir Valley, now controlled by Commander Massoud, that does -- they do receive humanitarian supplies?

    MR. EASTHAM: I can't take you specifically to the Panjshir Valley because access to the Panjshir Valley is blocked from the south by the Taliban.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: But of course, it's not blocked from Tajikistan, right?

    MR. EASTHAM: Yeah. But there is assistance, which flows into all areas of Afghanistan, through these U.N. programs.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: All right. Okay. So you're on the record. Thank you very much.

    MR. EASTHAM: Okay. But --

    REP. ROHRABACHER: That's not what my sources say.

    MR. EASTHAM: -- with respect to Bamian, I want to take you back to the period two, three years ago that you are referring to. In fact, I have -- at around that same time, I made a trip myself from Pakistan to Kandahar, to talk to the Taliban about the blockade, which they had imposed at the time, upon assistance to Bamian, because at the time Bamian was controlled by non-Taliban forces, from the Hazara people, there.

    One of the main effects of the trip by Mr. Richardson and Mr. Inderfurth that you have so criticized was to attempt to persuade the Taliban in fact to lift that very blockade of Bamian, which was -- and we followed it up with discussions in Islamabad, in which the Taliban did, in fact, agree to a partial lifting to enable foodstuffs to go into Bamian.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: So we traded off with the Taliban that they were going to lift their blockade and we were going to disarm all of their opponents.

    MR. EASTHAM: No, sir, that's not the case.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay. Well, let's go back -- go to disarming the Taliban's opponents. And by the way, this has been reconfirmed in everything that I've read, both official and unofficial. Are you trying to tell us now that the State Department's policy was not, at that crucial moment when the Taliban was vulnerable, to disarm the Taliban's opponents? Did not Mr. Inderfurth and the State Department contact all of the support groups that were helping the anti-Taliban forces and ask them to cease their flow of military supplies to the anti-Taliban forces?

    MR. EASTHAM: At that time we were trying to -- we were trying to construct a coalition which would cut off support for all forces in Afghanistan from the outside.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: Oh, and I take it --- so I take it that's a yes to my question. But the --

    MR. EASTHAM: No, sir; you've left out the cutting off the Taliban part.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: -- but the Taliban were -- but the Taliban were included; except what happened right after all of those other support systems that had been dismantled because of Mr. Inderfurth's and Mr. Richardson's appeal, and the State Department's appeal? What happened immediately -- not only immediately after, even while you were making that appeal, what happened in Pakistan? Was there an airlift of supplies, military supplies, between Pakistan and Kabul and the forward elements of the Taliban forces?

    (Pause.) REP. ROHRABACHER: The answer is yes. I know.

    MR. EASTHAM: The answer is --

    REP. ROHRABACHER: You can't tell me because --

    MR. EASTHMAM: The answer is --

    REP. ROHRABACHER: -- it's secret information.

    MR. EASTHAM: The answer is closed session, if you would like to dredge up that record.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: Right. Okay.

    MR. EASTHAM: That would be fine.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: Well, I don't have to go into closed session because I didn't get that information from any classified document. That information is available to anybody watching the scene up there. They know exactly what happened. Mr. Inderfurth, Mr. Bill Richardson, a good friend of mine, doing the bidding of this administration, basically convinced the anti-Talibans' mentors to quit providing them the weapons they needed, with some scheme that the Taliban were then going to lay down their arms. And immediately thereafter, Pakistan started a massive shift of military supplies which resulted in the total defeat of the anti-Taliban forces.

    This is -- now, this is either collusion or incompetence on the part of the State Department, as far as this congressman is concerned…

    Why haven't I been provided any documents about State Department analysis of -- during the formation period of the Taliban, about whether or not the Taliban was a good force or a bad force? Why have none of those documents reached my desk after two years?

    MR. EASTHAM: Congressman, we were responding to a specific request dealing with a specific time period, which I believe the commencing period of the request for documents was after the time period you're talking about. We were asked to provide documents, by the chairman of this committee, from 1996 to 1999.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: I see. You found a loophole in the chairman's wording --

    MR. EASTHAM: No, sir. We were responding to the chairman's request.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: You found a loophole in the chairman's wording of his request as to not to provide me those documents.

    You know, I am the only one here. I am not the chairman of the committee. I would never get the opportunity to have a back and forth with you, except in times like this.

    The State Department has taken full advantage of its use of words in order not to get this information out. I am looking forward to more documents. I will say this, I have spent hours overlooking those documents, and there's been nothing in those documents to persuade me that my charges that this administration has been covertly supporting the Taliban is not accurate.

    Feel free to respond to that.

    MR. EASTHAM: It's not true.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay.

    MR. EASTHAM: I have to negate the whole thesis that you're operating under, sir.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: All right. Then -- okay, the other option is the State Department is so incompetent that we have done things that helped the Taliban and have put them in a position of having hundreds of millions of dollars of drug money, and had power in Afghanistan, and undercutting the anti-Taliban forces. This is just -- this isn't intent, this is just incompetence?

    MR. EASTHAM: That's a judgment you can make.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: All right.

    MR. EASTHAM: And if you want to make that judgment, that's up to you, Congressman.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay.

    MR. EASTHAM: I would just observe that it's considerably more complex than that to deal with people over whom we have so little influence as with Taliban. I have spent -- I have been myself, by my count, six times into Afghanistan on both the northern side and the southern side. I have met innumerable times with Taliban officials to attempt to achieve U.S. objectives, and I have to tell you that it's a tough job.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: I believe it is a tough job --

    MR. EASTHAM: I'd like to introduce you to some of them sometime.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: Oh, I've met many Taliban, thank you. And as you are aware, I have met many Taliban and talked to them. Especially when you disarm their opponents, and you participate in an effort to disarm their opponents at a time when they're being supplied -- resupplied militarily, I guess it is very hard for them to take us seriously when we say we're going to get tough with them.

    MR. EASTHAM: You keep saying that, but it's not true.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: Well -- oh --

    MR. EASTHAM: The effort --

    REP. ROHRABACHER: You're just saying -- no, you're just --

    MR. EASTHAM: The effort was to stop the support for all the factions.

    REP. ROHRABACHER: That's correct. You didn't deny that we disarmed their opponents, you just said we were doing it with the Taliban as well. But as I pointed out, which you did not deny, the Taliban were immediately resupplied. Which means that we are part and parcel to disarming a victim against this hostile, totalitarian, anti- Western, drug-dealing force in their society, and we were part and parcel of disarming the victim, thinking that the aggressor was going to be disarmed as well, but it just didn't work out -- at the moment when Pakistan was arming them, I might add.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  20. #20
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    See? The government cannot be trusted.
    This seems to be the understatement of the century.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  21. #21
    Part-Time Polemic Senior Member ICantSpellDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    7,237

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Quote Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
    This seems to be the understatement of the century.

    hmm

    what is the motivation behind the governments support of terrorism all over the world?
    are you saying that it is individual greed by private parties within the govt?
    because all I see are conspiracy theories.

    The initial post was fine because it shed light on our government's Real-politics, but the next one is saying that the US government is a supplier of terrorists for no other reason (except maybe drugs and other things that would make moral people frown)

    keep reading Gawain
    Last edited by ICantSpellDawg; 07-22-2005 at 03:27.
    "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
    -Eric "George Orwell" Blair

    "If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
    (Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  22. #22
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Washington's Pakistani Allies: Killers and Drug Dealers
    By Rahul Bedi in New Delhi
    Reprinted from Sydney Morning Herald September 27, 2001
    [Posted 27 September 2001]
    =======================================

    Pakistan's shadowy intelligence service, one of the main sources of information for the US-led alliance against the Taliban regime, is widely associated with political assassinations, narcotics and the smuggling of nuclear and missile components - and backing fundamentalist Islamic movements.

    Locally referred to as Pakistan's "secret army" and the "invisible government", the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was founded soon after independence in 1948. Today it dominates the country's domestic and foreign policies. It is also responsible for manipulating the volatile religious elements, ethnic groups and political parties that are disliked by the army.

    Trained by the CIA and the French SDECE, the ISI "ran" the mujahideen in their decade-long fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Brigadier Mohammed Yousaf, who headed the ISI's Afghan bureau for four years until 1987, says in his book The Bear Trap that the agency funnelled US money and weapons to the mujahideen.

    In the early 1990s the ISI provided logistic and military support for the Taliban, and helped them to seize power in Kabul five years ago.

    Thereafter, it maintained a formidable presence across Afghanistan, helping the Taliban to consolidate their hold. The tactics used included bribery and raids that wiped out villages of different ethnic tribes. It is the knowledge gained of the Taliban into which the US is tapping as it plans punitive raids.

    Intelligence sources said that the ISI-CIA collaboration in the 1980s assisted Osama bin Laden, as well as Mir Aimal Kansi, who assassinated two CIA officers outside their office in Langley, Virginia, in 1993, and Ramzi Yousef, who was involved in the failed bomb attack on the World Trade Centre in New York five years later.

    Opium cultivation and heroin production in Pakistan's northern tribal belt and adjoining Afghanistan were a vital offshoot of the ISI-CIA co-operation. It succeeded in turning some of the Soviet troops into addicts.

    Heroin sales in Europe and the US, carried out through an elaborate web of deception, transport networks, couriers and pay-offs, offset the cost of the decade-long war in Afghanistan.

    In the 1970s the ISI established a division to procure nuclear and missile technology for the military from abroad, especially China and North Korea. It also smuggled in crucial nuclear components and know-how from Europe.

    (c) 2001 Sydney Morning Herald, Reprinted for Fair Use Only

    Subscribe to our newsletter at http://emperor.vwh.net/MailList/index.php
    Receive about one article/day.

    Click here to email the link to this article to a friend.

    = = = = = = = = = = = =
    Further Reading
    = = = = = = = = = =

    How can we trust the U.S. government's claim that its motivation is to fight terror when it has been the main support - no, the creator - of terrorist forces in several regions? Consider the following articles analyzing U.S. operations in the Balkans. The sources used in these articles are a) the mainstream media and b) interviews with eyewitnesses.

    Feel free to re-post these and other articles written for Emperor's Clothes in any non-commercial medium. For commercial use, contact us. When posting, please credit Emperor's Clothes. Thank you.

    The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) is a group of ruthless terrorists heavily involved in the drug trade. When NATO took over Kosovo, the KLA marched into the Province alongside the NATO occupiers.

    Emperor's Clothes has published eyewitness accounts which describe in detail how NATO and the KLA have worked together.

    1) See for example: 'Driven from Kosovo,' the account by the leader of the Jewish community of how he and thousands of other residents were driven from Pristina, capital of Kosovo. Can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/ceda.htm

    2) Also see "What NATO Occupation Would Mean For Macedonians' - eyewitness accounts of the NATO/KLA takeover of the Kosovo town of Orahovac. Can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/savethe-a.htm

    Having installed the KLA in power in Kosovo, NATO is now providing advisers, weapons and training for these same terrorists in their latest war, against Macedonia. This is discussed in several Emperor's Clothes articles which are supported by citations from mainstream media and reliable eyewitness accounts. For a list of these articles go to http://emperors-clothes.com/mac/list-m.htm

    One of the most revealing articles is by Canadian military analyst Scott Taylor, who recently traveled to Macedonia and talked to the terrorist leaders. See "Terrorist Thug Boasts: "Thanks to Uncle Sam, Macedonians are no match for us!" at http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/taylor.htm

    3) Belarus, a former Soviet Republic in the strategic Baltic region, is a thorn in NATO's side because it insists on independence from NATO. Having apparently failed to create a successful Fifth Column within the country, the U.S. Ambassador has openly declared Washington's intention to overthrow the Belarussian government, using techniques developed in the Contra war against the Nicaraguan Sandanistas in the 1980s. Indeed, the Ambasssador, Michael Kozak, is one of the operatives involved in Iran Contra.
    Can anyone make sense of all this? Are we fighting ourselves here

    Is this site to be believed? They seem to use independent sources .
    Last edited by Gawain of Orkeny; 07-22-2005 at 03:27.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  23. #23
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Were not only supporting dictatorships. Were recruiting and training terorists it looks like to me. It looks like the old saying "The more you practice to decieve the deeper is the trap you weave " or something to that effect. How can we Attack AQ in Afghanistan yet back it in Kosovo and Bosnia? It seems to me we have picked a very strange and unpredictable ally here. Its all very confusing. Its no wonder theres conspiracy theories about.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  24. #24
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    I'm surprised you didn't know of all this before. Personally, I would like all the die-hard Bush Fans of this board to look into all of these events fully, and then , if they can justify, continue to argue Bush's validity.
    Oh its seems its far from just Bush but that it has been our policy since Iran contra. Gah im turning into a liberal conspiracy theorist.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  25. #25
    Member Member sharrukin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Canada west coast
    Posts
    2,276

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
    Sharrukin, if you read my post carefully, you'll see I noted the massive ethnic cleansing of Krajina and said Srebenica was the largest "single" atrocity (an offensive is not a "single" atrocity). So I am not sure we disagree as much as you seem to think.

    But if you want to argue the point - where do you get your figure 15-20,000 dead in Krajina from? The British newspaper reports you linked to did not mention it. I have not heard that the Croat leadership organised mass executions of hundreds of prisoners as the Serbs did at Srebrenica, although I know individual acts of barbarism were conducted by all sides on a large scale during the conflict.
    I am not sure that Srebenica is in fact the single largest atrocity of the war, but given the wild exagerations common to all groups in the region, it seems pointless to me to claim the moral highground because we happen to be standing on the highest pile of corpses. The exaggerated Bosnian claims for Srebrenica suggest 7-8000 killed which has never been factually documented, and the exaggerated Serbian claims for the Krajina suggest 15-20,000 killed with 14,000 being the most common figure. Neither of these figures are likely to be even close to the actual number killed, as we saw in Kosovo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
    As I said, I'm no fan of the Croat government of that period. (By contrast, I have a lot of sympathy for the Bosnian leadership.) Nor do I support ethnic cleansing.
    I am no fan of any of the governments involved in that sickening mess, and that includes the part the United States and Germany had in it as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
    But I am afraid I regard the Croat offensive in Krajina rather as I do the Red Army advance into eastern Germany in 1945. What comes around, goes around.
    I also regard the Croatian offensive in much the same manner as the Red Army advance into eastern Germany in 1945.

    It may be that on occasion some Jewish bankers did mistreat Germans, and perhaps some Germans chose to justify their evil by saying "what goes around comes around". I choose not to justify mass rape and murder whether it be practiced by the enemy or by us! I have no real problem with Soviet policy of executing all SS prisoners or the German one of executing Commissars. I do have a problem with savagery practiced against civilians. A German housewife is no more responsible for Hitler, than a secretary in one of the Two Towers is responsible for American foreign policy and is no more deserving of death.

    He who fights against monsters must beware lest he become one himself.
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
    -- John Stewart Mills

    But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason.
    LORD ACTON

  26. #26
    Member Member sharrukin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Canada west coast
    Posts
    2,276

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Quote Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
    Were not only supporting dictatorships. Were recruiting and training terorists it looks like to me. It looks like the old saying "The more you practice to decieve the deeper is the trap you weave " or something to that effect. How can we Attack AQ in Afghanistan yet back it in Kosovo and Bosnia? It seems to me we have picked a very strange and unpredictable ally here. Its all very confusing. Its no wonder theres conspiracy theories about.
    We also seem to have had a role in facilitating the very existence of the Taliban as well. Most of it came from our "ally" Saudi Arabia. IMO, we went north to invade Iraq, when we might have done better to go south!


    The executives of American oil giant UNOCAL had already began collaborating with Saudi Arabia to construct a giant gas and oil pipeline from Central Asia, through Afghanistan to Pakistan when Taliban victory seemed imminent. Since the pipeline construction would also isolate American rival, Iran, by directing supplies east to Pakistan instead of to the Middle Eastern country, the US government was supportive enabling the company to serve at times as a makeshift diplomatic liaison between Afghanistan and the US.

    In the 1980s, madrasas in Afghanistan and Pakistan were allegedly boosted by an increase in financial support from the United States, European governments, and Saudi Arabia, all of whom reportedly viewed these schools as recruiting grounds for the anti-Soviet Mujahedin fighters. In the early 1990s, the Taliban movement was formed by Afghani Islamic clerics and students (talib means “student” in Arabic), many of whom were former Mujahedin who had studied and trained in madrasas and who advocated a strict form of Islam similar to the Wahhabism practiced in Saudi Arabia.

    Sudden, unexpected developments in early 1995 profoundly changed the situation. A new political/military force, the Taliban, sprang into existence. This movement, identified with religious students was centered among the Durrani Pushtuns who had been politically passive during the previous fifteen years of war and tumult. The movement took control of Kandahar in November, 1994. By February it was challenging the Rabbani government from Kabul to Herat. The Taliban were students or recent graduates of a network of traditional madrasas in southern Afghanistan and adjacent areas of Pakistan. The origin of the movement itself remains obscure, but once again a religious cause that offered political purification and an end to Afghanistan's suffering won widespread support.
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
    -- John Stewart Mills

    But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason.
    LORD ACTON

  27. #27
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    This is all too much. Speaking of the CIA. Ive been wondering about the split of Bin Laden and the Saudis. These guys actually make sense.

    Gaping Holes in the 'CIA vs. bin Laden' Story
    by Jared Israel
    [Posted 8 November 2001]
    =======================================

    Below we have posted an article from the 'Times of India.' It reports that according to the BBC program, 'Newsnight,' the Bush administration told the FBI to back off from investigating the bin Laden family's terrorist connections before the attack on the World Trade Center.

    According to the publication, 'Le Figaro,' a CIA agent visited Osama bin Laden last July. 'Figaro' reports that this meeting took place while bin Laden was being treated in the American Hospital in Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates. The Figaro article unfortunately is not documented - that is, we only have the word of the author, Alexandra Richard, that the report is true. (6)

    Much more compelling is the article we posted a few weeks ago, with excerpts from a congressional hearing last year on terrorism in South Asia. In that hearing, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher clashed with important US officials when he charged the Clinton administration with sabotaging efforts to arrest bin Laden. (4)

    It has become increasingly evident that the official story, that Osama bin Laden broke with the U.S. Establishment and its Saudi Arabian junior partners a decade ago is false. The claim that he has been trying to destroy the U.S. Empire ever since is an invention. The claim made by the Clinton and Bush administrations, that they have tried, but unfortunately failed, to defeat the wily Mr. bin Laden is full of holes.

    Here are a few of the bigger ones.

    THE GULF WAR SCENARIO

    According to the official story, bin Laden broke with the Saudi and U.S. governments over the Gulf War.

    That may sound plausible to Western ears. After all, Iraq is an Arab country and bin Laden is an Arab.

    But Iraq and Saudi Arabia are quite different. Saudi Arabia was and is tyrannized by the fanatical Fundamentalist Wahhabi sect, endorsed by the Saudi 'royal family' and by the rich bin Laden family as well. Though Iraq has a tyrannical government, it is a different sort of tyrannical government. It does not subscribe to Wahhabi teachings.

    Bin Laden spent the 1980s fighting a secular government (which was backed by Soviet troops) in Afghanistan. Then he returned to Saudi Arabia where:

    "After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait he lobbied the Saudi royal family to organize civil defense in the kingdom and to raise a force from among the Afghan war veterans to fight Iraq." ('Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,' 23 September 2001 Sunday, Two Star Edition, pg. A-12, "How a Holy War against the Soviets turned on US" by Ahmed Rashid)

    Why did he want "to raise a force ...to fight Iraq"?

    Nobody can seriously argue that the Iraqis intended to attack Saudi Arabia. The argument between Iraq and Kuwait was over oil, and also over a geography that was inherited from colonial times. If you look at a map you will see that Kuwait looks like a tiny but strategic piece chopped out of Iraq. (For map, see http://home.achilles.net/~sal/icons/iraq.gif)

    The Iraq-Kuwait fight was in fact a local war. All reports indicate that Saddam Hussein believed that a) Iraq was in essence being attacked by Kuwait and that therefore an invasion would be a counter-attack and b) that the U.S. would not intervene.

    On Sept. 22, 1990, the 'N.Y. Times' published what is apparently an accurate transcript of a conversation between Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie. This conversation took place on July 25, eight days before the outbreak of fighting. We will post the Glaspie-Hussein conversation as soon as possible. It is most interesting. In it, she suggests that the Bush administration understands the Iraqi point of view and does not wish to meddle in an Arab dispute. For instance, Amb. Glaspie says:

    "...we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait...we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq." ('N.Y. Times, 22 September, 1990)

    Since Hussein wanted to make sure of U.S. neutrality before taking action against Kuwait, and since Saudi Arabia is Washington's key Arab ally, with huge U.S. military bases, of which, of course, the Iraqi leaders were aware, it is simply not conceivable that Iraq planned to attack Saudi Arabia.

    Thus, bin Laden had no defensive reason to call on "the Saudi royal family to organize civil defense in the kingdom" let alone "to raise a force from among the Afghan war veterans to fight Iraq."

    So why did he take such a provocative stance?

    The most reasonable explanations are a) that he wanted to crush Iraq because it was a non-Wahhabi Muslim state and/or b) that he was associated with the CIA, which had decided to attack Iraq and was therefore attempting to increase tensions between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, or even to provoke Iraq into launching a preemptive strike against Saudi Arabia, thus giving the U.S. an excuse to attack Iraq.

    In any event, it was clear bin Laden was not upset by the notion of fighting Iraq. Why then, according to the official story, did the Gulf War so upset him?

    The official answer is, because it involved a Saudi-U.S. alliance, which he felt desecrated Saudi Arabia.

    This is a little much to swallow. Bin laden had worked closely with U.S. forces - namely, the Central Intelligence Agency - as the representative of the Saudi 'royal family' in Afghanistan during the decade when the CIA nurtured Islamist forces to fight Afghan government and Soviet troops.

    He was no idealistic holy man. He and his family made a fortune off the carnage in Afghanistan. (This is discussed below.)

    Why should bin Laden suddenly go berserk because the Saudi Arabian government was doing exactly what he himself had done - as the representative of the Saudi Arabian government?

    Because (according to the official story) the war brought tens of thousands of U.S. troops into Saudi Arabian bases and this massive infidel invasion desecrated Saudi Arabia's sacred soil. Horrified, he broke with the Saudi Arabian 'royal family' and the U.S.

    CONSTRUCTION BIDS ARE THICKER THAN WATER

    It's a compelling story, but no cigar. The sacred soil that the U.S. infidel soldiers supposedly desecrated was located in a series of top secret facilities built during the 1980s by the U.S. military at a cost (mostly to Saudi Arabia!) of - are you ready? - over 200 BILLION dollars. This was the largest U.S. military construction project ever attempted outside the continental USA. As a Public Television program reported in 1993:

    "Scott Armstrong: A $200 billion program that's basically put together and nobody's paying attention to it. It's-- it's the ultimate government off the books...

    "Scott Armstrong: The Saudis have been the principal backers and financers of the largest armaments system that the world has ever seen, in any region of the world, that includes over $95 billion worth of weapons that they bought themselves, includes another $65 billion worth of military infrastructure and ports that they've put in. We've managed to create an interlocking system that has one master control base, five sub-control bases, any one of which is capable of operating the whole thing, that are in hardened bunkers, that are hard-wired, that is to say, against nuclear blast or anything else. They created nine major ports that weren't there before, dozens of airfields all over the kingdom. They have now hundreds of modern American fighter planes and the capability of adding hundreds more. The Saudis alone have spent $156 billion that I can document line by line, item by item, on weapons system and infrastructure to support this." (FRONTLINE Show #1112 Air Date: February 16, 1993 "The Arming of Saudi Arabia". Scott Armstrong is a top investigative reporter for the 'Washington Post']
    (For official PBS WebPage for the show, click here; for the transcript, click here)

    The contracts for building those bases, ports, and airfields went in part to Saudi construction companies. Osama's family company, Saudi Binladin Group (the name is spelled differently but it's the same family) is intimate with the Saudi royal family; moreover it is the biggest Saudi construction company (and also a giant in the telecommunications field).

    So as sure as death and taxes, Saudi Binladin Group got a nice chunk of that $200 billion. And while the bin Ladens were building those U.S. bases, who did Osama think was going to be using them? Martians?

    DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION

    Getting back to the matter of construction contracts, consider what happened after the Khobar Towers complex in Dhahran was bombed on June 25, 1996. Osama bin Laden was accused by the U.S. of masterminding that bombing, which killed 19 U.S. airmen and wounded about 500 others.

    Afterwards, a new 'super-secure' facility was erected:

    "The facility very likely is the most heavily guarded operational installation used by the US military. This, clearly, is what retired Army Gen. Wayne A. Downing had in mind when in 1996 he released a report criticizing security at Khobar Towers and recommending more extensive force protection measures.

    "… In a supreme irony, the complex was built by the giant contractor, Saudi Binladin Group -- owned by the same family that produced international terrorist Osama bin Laden, now an outcast in his homeland." ('Air Force Magazine,' February, 1999)

    'Irony' is not exactly the word I would use, but OK.

    HIGH-RENT CAVES

    Osama did some building for the infidels in Afghanistan as well. That was during the late 1980s. Under contract with the CIA, he and the family company built the multi-billion dollar "caves" (1) in which he is now, supposedly, hiding, thus causing the U.S. and Britain to bomb the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, and other strategic military installations:

    "He brought in engineers from his father's company and heavy construction equipment to build roads and warehouses for the Mujaheddin. In 1986, he helped build a CIA-financed tunnel complex, to serve as a major arms storage depot, training facility and medical center for the Mujaheddin, deep under the mountains close to the Pakistan border."
    ('Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,' 23 September 2001 Sunday, Two Star Edition, pg. A-12, "How a Holy War against the Soviets turned on US" by Ahmed Rashid)

    OH DEAR, DON'T SEND THAT AWFUL MAN TO US!

    After supposedly breaking with the Saudi rulers - though we doubt the story - bin Laden went to Sudan. Soon the Sudanese tired of his presence. In March, 1996, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, then the Sudanese Minister of State for Defense, offered to extradite bin Laden either to Saudi Arabia or the United States.

    "The Sudanese security services, he said, would happily keep close watch on bin Laden for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was prepared to place him in custody and hand him over, though to whom was ambiguous. In one formulation, Erwa said Sudan would consider any legitimate proffer of criminal charges against the accused terrorist." ('The Washington Post,' 3 October 2001)

    U.S. officials turned down the offer of extradition. 'The Washington Post' article that reported this goes into some length quoting U.S. officials attempting to explain exactly why they turned down the offer. The officials are quoted explaining that the Saudis were afraid of a fundamentalist backlash if they jailed and executed bin Laden, that they resented Sudan, that the U.S. resented Sudan, that the U.S. didn't have sufficient evidence to put him on trial. Everything, in fact, except the simplest explanation: that bin Laden was a U.S. asset - either part of the CIA, or someone whom the CIA used. Perhaps the 'Washington Post' writers were hinting at this explanation when they wrote:

    "And there were the beginnings of a debate, intensified lately, on whether the United States wanted to indict and try bin Laden or to treat him as a combatant in an underground war." ('The Washington Post,' 3 October 2001)

    Emphasis on the word 'treat' as in 'pretend that he was.'

    In any case, the Sudanese offer of extradition was turned down.

    "[U.S. officials] said, 'Just ask him to leave the country. Just don't let him go to Somalia,' Erwa, the Sudanese general, said in an interview. 'We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they [US officials!] said, 'Let him.'"

    "On May 15, 1996, Foreign Minister Taha sent a fax to Carney in Nairobi, giving up on the transfer of custody. His government had asked bin Laden to vacate the country, Taha wrote, and he would be free to go." ('The Washington Post,' 3 October 2001)

    Note: "We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they [US officials!] said, 'Let him.'"

    I find this chilling.

    THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL!

    It is mind boggling that U.S. government officials would try to justify rejecting Sudan's offer to extradite bin Laden because the Clinton administration was 'lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time,' ('WP', 3 Oct.) Do they think Americans have no ability to remember what happened the day before yesterday? For example, that this same U.S. government didn't hesitate to bomb Sudan, Iraq and Yugoslavia, all of which bombings constituted the worst criminal violations of international law? Not to mention Afghanistan.

    Not to mention the Red Cross. (5)

    Moreover, according to the highly reputable 'Jane's Intelligence Review:'

    "In February 1995, US authorities named bin Laden and his Saudi brother-in-law, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, among 172 unindicted co-conspirators with the 11 Muslims charged for the World Trade Center bombing and the associated plot to blow up other New York landmarks." ('Jane's Intelligence Review,' 1 October 1995)

    So bin Laden had been named as an unindicted co-conspirator a year before Sudan offered to extradite him.

    Why couldn't the U.S. government have accepted the Sudanese offer to extradite bin Laden? Why couldn't they have jailed him, gotten together their best case and put him on trial? What exactly did the U.S. government have to lose? The worst that could have happened would have been that they failed to convict him and had to let him leave the country...

    JUST LET HIM GO, OH, ANYWHERE. MAYBE TO - AFGHANISTAN!

    Instead, the U.S. asked Sudan to expel bin Laden, knowing full well that he would go to Afghanistan - and Kosovo and Macedonia. (2)

    By the way, two years later, the U.S. military bombed Sudan, supposedly because the Sudanese government was allied with bin Laden. Doesn't it sound like bin Laden's real friends were not in Sudan, as President Clinton tried to convince the world when he sent cruise missiles to destroy a Sudanese medicine factory, but in the U.S. State Department?

    There is so much about bin Laden that suggests he is still in some way associated with the CIA:

    * His activities in Afghanistan prior to 1990;

    * His activities on the "U.S. side" in Bosnia, Kosovo and, quite recently, in Macedonia; (2)

    * The refusal of the Clinton administration to allow Sudan to extradite him in 1996;

    * The very convincing arguments by Congressman Rohrabacher that the Clinton administration sabotaged efforts to apprehend him (4);

    * His functioning as a lightning rod for dissenters - getting people who oppose U.S. policy to support his ultra-repressive Islamist politics. This is discussed in the article, 'Bin Laden, Terrorist Monster.' Take Two!, which can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/taketwo.htm;

    * His amazing transformation regarding the World Trade Center attack. At first he denied involvement, saying "that dozens of terrorists organizations from countries like Israel, Russia, India and Serbia could be responsible" (i.e., it was the work of Satan) and "insisted that al Qaida does not consider the United States its enemy." But a week later he issued a video tape where he said "God Almighty hit the United States at its most vulnerable spot....When Almighty God rendered successful a convoy of Muslims, the vanguards of Islam, He allowed them to destroy the United States. I ask God Almighty to elevate their status and grant them Paradise." This latter statement was pre-recorded and released immediately after the U.S. government started bombing Afghanistan, that is, precisely when Mr. Bush needed the emotional impact of just such a statement in order to 'justify' yet another illegal war; (3)

    * And now this report from the BBC that the Bush administration suppressed investigations into connections between members of the bin Laden family and possible terrorist groups.

    Doesn't all this point to a working relationship between U.S. covert forces and Mr. b. L?

    "WE ARE DEADLY ENEMIES, SO TAKE THESE 400 TRUCKS, O CURSED ONE!"

    Earlier I said I doubted the reality of the 'break' between bin Laden and the Saudi Royals. According to the book, "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia,'' by Ahmed Rashid, who is the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asian correspondent for the 'Far Eastern Economic Review':

    "Surprisingly, just a few weeks before the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, the book tells us...'In July 1998 Prince Turki had visited Kandahar and a few weeks later 400 new pick-up trucks arrived in Kandahar for the Taliban, still bearing their Dubai license plates.''' (Quoted in 'The creation called Osama,' by Shamsul Islam. Can be read at
    http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/creat.htm

    They were all, I am told, Toyotas.

    FAMILY FEUDS?

    One final point. Part of the official Osama story is that the elusive Mr. bin Laden broke with his family because of his extreme Fundamentalist religious-politics.

    Really?

    Let us consider a few pieces of information which might suggest we adopt a stance of extreme skepticism:

    1) "...when Osama bin Laden decided to join the non-Afghan fighters with the Mujaheddin, his family responded enthusiastically." ('Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,' 23 September 2001)

    2) The entire family is known for its fiercely conservative Islamist (Wahhabi) views: "His father is known in these areas as a man with deeply conservative religious and political views and for his profound distaste for non-Islamic influences that have penetrated some of the most remote corners of old Arabia." UPI, quoted at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...3/214858.shtml

    2) It is true that families have feuds. In the typical U.S. family, wars may happen. People fight; they make peace.

    But Osama does not come from a 'typical U.S. family.' He comes from an intensely conservative rural Yemeni clan. Such families don't have petty fights and stop talking to each other for ten years and then make up and it's no big deal:

    "Though he grew up in the Saudi Arabian city of Jiddah, about 700 miles away across the Arabian peninsula, those who know him say he retains the characteristics of the people of this remote Yemeni region: extremely clannish and intensely conservative in their adherence to strict forms of Islam." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...3/214858.shtml

    3) If such clans do feud, it can get violent. And certainly, it is hard to believe that Osama would be disowned by this sort of clan-family (as the official story claims he was) but nevertheless maintain cordial relations with family members. Consider this report:

    "[National Security] Agency officials have sometimes played tapes of bin Laden talking to his mother to impress members of Congress and select visitors to the agency." (quoted in 'Baltimore Sun', 24 April 2001)

    And this:

    "Bin Ladens building U.S. troops' housing
    By Sig Christenson; Express-News Staff Writer

    "Bin Laden family members have said they are estranged from their brother, who turned against the Saudi government after joining Muslim fighters following the Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan.

    "But Yossef Bodansky, director of the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, said 'sama maintains connections' with some of his nearly two dozen brothers. He would not elaborate." ('San Antonio Express-News,' 14 September 1998)

    And, finally, from 'Le Figaro':

    "While he was hospitalised [in the American Hospital in Dubai in July, 2001], bin Laden received visits from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis." (6)

    The article from the 'Times of India' follows.

    -- Jared Israel

    [Correction: As originally posted, this article included a longer quote from the 23 September 2001 'Pittsburgh Post-Gazette': "His father backed the Afghan struggle [meaning: the U.S.-supported terrorist war against the Afghan government] and helped fund it; when Osama bin Laden decided to join the non-Afghan fighters with the Mujaheddin, his family responded enthusiastically."

    Since Mohammed Awad bin Laden died in 1968, this is most likely a typographical error. It should most likely read, "His family."]

    =======================================

    Bush took FBI agents off Laden family trail

    'Times of India' 7 November 2001
    BY RASHMEE Z AHMED

    TIMES NEWS NETWORK

    LONDON: America was itself to blame for the events of September 11 because the US administration was using "kid gloves" in tracking down Osama bin Laden and "other fanatics linked to Saudi Arabia", a special BBC investigation has alleged in a damning indictment of the two presidents Bush and American foreign policy.

    The report, which the BBC claimed was based on a secret FBI document, numbered 199I WF213589 and emanating out of the FBI’s Washington field office, alleged that the cynicism of the American establishment and "connections between the CIA and Saudi Arabia and the Bush men and bin Ladens" may have been the real cause of the deaths of thousands in the World Trade Centre attacks.

    The investigation, which featured in the BBC’s leading current affairs programme, Newsnight, said the FBI was told to "back off" investigating one of Osama bin Laden’s brothers, Abdullah, who was linked to "the Saudi-funded World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a suspected terrorist organisation," whose accounts have still not frozen by the US treasury despite "being banned by Pakistan some weeks ago and India claiming it was linked to an organisation involved in bombing in Kashmir".

    Newsnight said there was a long history of "shadowy" American connections with Saudi Arabia, not least the two presidents Bush’s "business dealings" with the bin Ladens and another more insidious link revealed by the former head of the American visa section in Jeddah.

    The official said he had been concerned about visas issued to large numbers of "unqualified" men "with no family links or any links with America or Saudi Arabia", only to find out later that it "was not visa fraud" but part of a scheme in which young men "recruited by Osama bin Laden" were being sent for "terrorist training by the CIA" after which they were sent on to Afghanistan.

    In a reiteration of a now well-known claim by one of George W Bush’s former business partners, the BBC said he made his first million 20 years ago on the back of a company financed by Osama’s elder brother, Salem. But it added the more disturbing assertion that both presidents Bush had lucrative stakes along with the bin Ladens in Carlyle Corporation, a small private company which has gone on to become one of America's biggest defence contractors. The bin Ladens sold their stake in Carlyle soon after September 11, it said.

    American politicians later told the BBC programme that they rejected the accusation that the establishment had called the dogs of the intelligence agencies off the bin Ladens and the royal House of Saud because of a strategic interest in Saudi Arabia, which has the world's biggest oil reserve.

    (c) 'Times of India,' 2001 Posted for Fair Use Only

    Original Story:
    http://www.timesofindia.com/articles..._id=1030259305

    Other stories on the BBC Newsnight report:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...293682,00.html
    http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfra...01/dlame43.asp

    =======================================

    ***********************
    FURTHER READING:
    ***********************

    1) 'Taliban Camps U.S. bombed in Afghanistan Were Built by NATO'. Based on 'N.Y. Times' article. Can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/camps.htm

    2) 'Bin Laden in the Balkans.' Mainstream news reports that confirm bin Laden's support for terrorism - and, alas, for the 'U.S.' side - in the Balkans. Can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/news/binl.htm

    3) "'Bin Laden, Terrorist Monster.' Take Two!," by Jared Israel. Can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/taketwo.htm

    4) 'Congressman: U.S. Set Up Anti-Taliban to be Slaughtered' Comments by Jared Israel followed by excerpts from congressional hearing. Can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/rohr.htm

    (Full transcript of hearings can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/rohrfull.htm )

    (5) 'Red Cross Spokesmen Refute Pentagon Lies'. An Interview by Emperor's Clothes with the Red Cross about the U.S. bombing of its Afghan facilities. Can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/redcross.htm

    6) 'CIA AGENT ALLEGEDLY MET BIN LADEN IN JULY' . Translation of article from 'Le Figaro' can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/lefigaro.htm)
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  28. #28
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Quote Originally Posted by sharrukin
    It may be that on occasion some Jewish bankers did mistreat Germans, and perhaps some Germans chose to justify their evil by saying "what goes around comes around".
    No, you cannot compare what the German Army did in the East in 1941-45 with fictious abuses of Germans by "Jewish bankers". There's no equivalence between that kind of BS and a country reaping the whirlwind of a war it started.

  29. #29
    Back in black Member monkian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Casnewydd, Cymru
    Posts
    2,034

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    I suggest you all watch the last episode of 'The Power of Nighmares- The Politics of fear'

    Its very enlightening stuff.

    Bin Laden only started using the name al-Qa’eda after the us Goverment used the name to group all small terrorist factions as some sort of international superpower ala The Soviets, The Mafia etc so that they had some sort of 'evil' group to defeat.
    Look what these bastards have done to Wales. They've taken our coal, our water, our steel. They buy our homes and live in them for a fortnight every year. What have they given us? Absolutely nothing. We've been exploited, raped, controlled and punished by the English — and that's who you are playing this afternoon Phil Bennett's pre 1977 Rugby match speech

  30. #30
    Back in black Member monkian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Casnewydd, Cymru
    Posts
    2,034

    Default Re: How we trained al-Qa’eda

    Islamist extremist groups originally tried to create Islamist states by in THEIR OWN countries by targetting their goverments and trying to get the civillians to rise up and otherthrow them.

    This failed, although the majority of Islamist fighters in Afghani training camps were still training to overthrow their own goverments rather than attack Western targets.

    Their tactics only recently changed when they thought they could inspire other Islamist groups by attacking the 'corrupt' West - i.e the American embassy bombings in Africa, the attack on the American Warship, 911 etc

    The US Goverment then claimed that America and the West was under attack by a highly sophisticated Terrorist Supergroup - al-Qa’eda, lead by Bin Laden which was and is untrue.. Bin Laden just used this to his advantage to get prestige and fame to inspaire other small Islamic terrorist groups to attack similar targets.

    If you think about it - just how many highly sophisticated al-Qa’eda underground bunker complexes have they found in Afghanistan ?

    None.

    Why ? There bever was any.
    Look what these bastards have done to Wales. They've taken our coal, our water, our steel. They buy our homes and live in them for a fortnight every year. What have they given us? Absolutely nothing. We've been exploited, raped, controlled and punished by the English — and that's who you are playing this afternoon Phil Bennett's pre 1977 Rugby match speech

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO