You think he'll be "captured" just in time for the election?

Obviously, you paid little attention to even mainstream politics. Osama was our buddy when Russian and Afghanistan were going at it. This is truth and it has been proven and admitted too a million times - not dragged out.

 

Once again, we're missing the bigger picture. The CIA and Pakistan's ISI set up this machine. No one dismantled it after it served the govt's purpose. People just can't come to grips with reality.

http://www.room23.de/2235.html

Excerpts:

Osama bin Laden first traveled to Peshawar in 1980. In 1986 he was a major contractor on the construction of the Khost tunnel complex deep under the mountains along the Pakistan border. Housed within that complex were a major arms depot, a training facility and a medical center for the mujahideen. A little more than a decade after bin Laden's crew completed construction, Bill Clinton used Tomahawk cruise missiles against it. Today troops continue to fight the remnants of the Taliban there.

In 1989, the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan. A few months later, the Soviet Union itself collapsed. The Cold War was over. But a new war was about to begin. At the end of l989, in the town of Khost, Osama bin Laden announced the creation of a new organization, al-Qaeda, "the Base".

"How did the right-wing Islamism, an ideological tendency with small and scattered numbers before the Afghan War, come to occupy the global center stage after 9/11?" asks Mamdani. "The answer lies in the Afghan jihad, which gave it not only the organization, the numbers, the skills, the reach and the confidence but also a coherent objective."

Mahfoud Bennoune, an Algerian sociologist is more explicit, "Your government participated in creating a monster...16,000 Arabs were trained in Afghanistan, made into a veritable killing machine."

Twelve years after the end of the Cold War an L.A. Times investigative reporter concluded that the key participants in every major terrorist attack in New York, France, Saudi Arabia and other countries were veterans of the Afghan War.

 

Again....no we did not. The US never trained Bin Laden, they never gave him aid, funding, etc. etc. etc. The U.S. supported Afghani Mujahadeen is the one that kicked out the Russians. The U.S. dipped out in a terrible way, and the Taliban took over years after the U.S. had already pulled out.

 

What are your sources?

 

[This one is long, but it gets to the point right off the bat, so you shouldn't have to spend more than a short time with it, just read the first few paragraphs.]
http://www.politicsol.com/guest-commentaries/2001-09-18.html


http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0802662.html
"The Soviet invasion, which sparked Afghan resistance, intially involved an estimated 30,000 troops, a force that ultimately grew to 100,000. The mujahidin were supported by aid from the United States, China, and Saudi Arabia, channeled through Pakistan, and from Iran. Although the USSR had superior weapons and complete air control, the rebels successfully eluded them. The conflict largely settled into a stalemate, with Soviet and government forces controlling the urban areas, and the Afghan guerrillas operating fairly freely in mountainous rural regions. As the war progressed, the rebels improved their organization and tactics and began using imported and captured weapons, including U.S. antiaircraft missiles, to neutralize the technological advantages of the USSR."

I have other ones, but I am running late to class, I'll post more later though.

 

Now go a step futher. Who were the fighters of the mujahidin?

Future Al-Qaida leaders, including Bin-Laden.

 

Jozak:

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

http://www.antiwar.com/rep/chuss10.html

I like this one:

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/wtc/oblnus091401.html

 

This is one person's opinion. Dana Rohrabacher is a neocon, so of course he is going to lie and twist facts to support what he wants people to believe. If I wanted to hear such biased, propagandistic crap, I'd tune into Rush Limbaugh and listen to his nonsense.

Everything Rohrabacher said in that article has been disproven many times over, and not just by liberals.

BTW, did anyone see Dana Rohrabacher on Real Time with Bill Maher about a week ago? The guy made a total ass of himself, and he couldn't back a single one of his claims up with facts. He would simply laugh and smirk, and make sarcastic remarks when one of the other guests would say something he disagreed with. Just another typical neocon blowhard nazi.

 

These groups that the U.S. supported were part of the Mujahadein, that includes bin Laden. bin Laden formed his own group al Qaeda around 1989 after the U.S. was finished with its involvement.

The results of leaving those groups armed are the same regardless of whether or not one believes the CIA funded bin Laden directly. Bin Laden was a perfect person in some respects for the CIA to work with, especially his construction expertise. He helped build the underground tunnels and complexes that the CIA needed.

Of course, the CIA won't admit this. Some CIA officials even claim that they didn't have any idea who bin Laden was. Those who claim no involvement have the upper hand to some extent in the argument because the CIA keeps all the records classififed.

There weren't many documents showing direct U.S. support of Saddam until a U.S. contractor filed a civil law suit against the U.S. govt and records went public. Also, we would have never known that the U.S. govt gave Saddam anthrax, botulism, and West Nile virus if it weren't for the House Banking committee in 1994 accidentally discovering the records in an unrelated investigation.

 

Those who are confused and claim to be 'libertarian' can continue to try to downplay the fact that the U.S. govt was involved in these groups They can continue to defend the govt getting into our pockets and taking $200 billion from us for Iraq to fight the new 'war on terror' which resulted from flawed govt policies of the past.

 

I don't think Jozac considers himself to be a libertarian. He seems like a full-blown Republican.

Then again, I might be wrong.

 

Incidentally, the Taliban was supported by the ISI of Pakistan and the CIA. Pakistan was the only country to ever formally recognize the Taliban as a government. Clinton nearly formally recognized the Taliban back in the 90s when the Taliban may have been needed to run an oil pipeline through Afghanistan.

 

I miss Bill Maher, I so wish I had HBO... or any cable

On a completely unrelated note, which will get the shit kicked out of me here. Since everyone thinks that Bin Laden is already in our hands and that this announcement will make Bush win, whynot everyone blaming those of use voting 3rd party, go ahead and vote along with us. Or at least stop blaming us for Kerry not winning. I mean you all just said so right here.

I think all of this nonsense has been in the works since the 60's but that is just my personal belief.


Hmm... can I quote this entire thread in the future?

 

Some were, some were not. Your leaving out important parts of history here. The US giving aid to Pakistan to help the Mujahidin to fight the Russians is a lot different from what is being said on here: That the US armed the Taliban/trained Bin Laden. The Taliban did not even exsist then as I stated in my first post, which you seem to agree with. No one had any idea that the Taliban would split off, form a faction, and take over control of the country years after the war ended. Secondly, Bin Laden was fighting the Soviets before the US even got involved, ie: The US did not train Bin Laden to be this killing machine responsible for 9/11--people who use that lingo want the blame of 9/11 to be soley on the United States, without even considering other factors involved.

Where the US messed up (And paid for it) was pulling out of Afghanistan and not helping with reconstruction--a lot of animosity towards the United States was rooted in that as well.

 

This has absolutley nothing to do with the Soviet-Afghan War which is the topic being discussed here. Weather or not I supported the war in Iraq (Which, I really didn't in many ways but I understood the supposed reasons for it) is not relevant to this discussion. If you wish to question my views, you can either ask me, which would be the sensible solution, or acutally read the other 300+ posts on this forum I have. I've been a memeber on this site and the old one for a couple years now, and most people know I am a Libertarian.

 

How? People on here said the US supported the Taliban and Bin Laden--that's false. You aren't looking at how the Taliban came to power, you would rather just easily blame it on the US. The US gave money to the Pakistani ISI--they used it to support the Mujahidin. The Taliban came long after the war was over and the US was gone--that is hardly supporting Bin Laden and the Taliban, considering the Taliban didn't even exsist yet, which someone just now conceded, finnaly.

Indeed. You are wrong. Since when does the Republican platform support gay marrige, legalization of marijuana, uncensored press, bringing home troops from abroad, open immigration, and an end to corporate welfare?

 

Did you look at the other source I provided? Apparently not. You claim Rohrabacher has been disproven, by whom? ANTI WAR.com?

I don't agree with any of this guy's views, nor did I ever imply I did. Most of that article is true, some parts I have no researched, some I have. The only point I wanted people to get out of the article was what I have been saying all along: The US never aided the Taliban (It did not even exsist yet) and did not train Bin Laden--he was over there fighting the Russians just fine before the US started funneling money to the ISI in Pakistan. This is not a hard concept.

 

Well, I agree with you on this one. One has to expect that all the armed groups simply aren't going to meld back into the countryside and do peaceful constructive things after their military usefulness to the U.S. has passed. Leaving all of the military facilities in Afghanistan unsecured was also foolish.

There wasn't much diplomatic effort on the part of the U.S. in the 80s either. It was mainly a military mentality the U.S. took of arming groups to try to bring about a solution. The U.S. arming both sides in the Iran-Iraq conflict in the 80s is another good example of a flawed policy.

The initial military campaign in Iraq last year also seemed successful at first but has turned into a mess. One has to wonder if the U.S. will retreat from Iraq similar to what it did in Afghanistan. There will be some serious problems in the Mideast if Iraq is left to fester and become a civil war.

 

The U.S. policies are to be top dog at all costs. It uses people, and countries to acheive these goals. When they have served their purpose it disposes of them or changes sides, what ever to acheive the goal.

Countries left in ruin will not be a economic competitor, and can be to tap for their resources, meaning people, minerals, oil.


As for Iraq it has been a sucesses, I would assume the pentagon is thrilled with themselves. Conquering a country in such a short time span, occupying it and all for only 1000 soldiers so far.

 

And it only cost $200 billion so far.