Bhutto assassination: CIA plot?

[34f3f3f]

Unlikely, but a tasty morsel for conspiracy mongers to gnaw on. A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. This would play out well in Hollywood and I can already hear the secretive tap of keyboards nervously breaking the gridlock of industrial action. Was it a bungle, turned to advantage? What exactly is to be gained by saying she was shot by a terrorist, and then to say she died from a fall and head wound? Then of course there is the sniper theory, no postmortem, and an angry husband intent on using as much leverage as possible to discredit the Bhutto family’s political opponent, Musharraf.

What does is all possibly add up to? She had a lot of enemies, in both camps, and of course it wouldn’t be the first time that a partnership of this kind is forged to defeat a common enemy. And what better way to throw the dogs off the scent than to leave several trails, which automatically hatch conspiracy theories that fervently feed on themselves, acting like a giant shredder of the truth, as each theory vies for credibility.

I mean why go to all the bother trying to conceal the truth, when good old conspiracy can do the job for you? Let’s hope the makers of the subprime crisis never gets there hands on this.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

qwerty: The CIA, huh? You realize that if the CIA were trying to assassinate Bhutto, they would have offed Chavez in Venezuela instead. These guys can’t find their a** with a flashlight and both hands.

Feeding the conspiracy beast, though, I would suggest it is more likely that Musharraf did the deed and then blamed al Qaeda. Two birds with one stone: You get rid of a highly popular opposition leader, and also put yourself in a position to capture even more power in order to bring al Qaeda to heel.

[speedingpullet]

To be honest, I think its a case of serendipidy and bungling simultaneously.

Serendipity, because Musharraf clearly wasn’t going to let her run for election, nor any other party for that matter – his only wish is to remain in power. His ‘election’ of a toady to head the Army, and his crackdown on the Pakistani legal system, plus all the hot air about ‘allowing’ a free and fair election in the new year is clearly a byzantine move on his part to hold onto power for as long as possible.

Bungling, because his govt could have gotten away scott-free if they’d only kept thier mouth shut about the method of her death. My bet is that the govt welcomed the news that she’d been shot, and wanted to make the story go away as soon as possible – hence the totally ludicrous insistance that she hit her head on the sunroof. That way, no one is to blame, and everything is hunky-dory.

Unfortunately, for him, an assassination of a very popular candidate doesn’t go away that easily, so, rather than calming the waters by producing a ‘plausible’ explanation, they’ve shot themselves in the foot.

New footage of the horrible incident has just been aired on CNN – in it you can clearly see a man in sunglasses with a gun shoot at her. Milliseconds later, you can see the back of her veil and her hair lift, and she clearly slumps into the body of the van several seconds before the bomb blast. So, obviously, the govt is wrong in its insistence that she died from a skull fracture.

As for the CIA – I doubt it very much. The US was forging ties with the PPP, and had she lived, would have put increasing pressure on Musharraf to concede proper democratic elections. As Allan points out, the CIA has its hands full with the likes of Chavez and Ahmedinijhad,
Bhutto was technically on ‘our’ side.

Personally, I do believe she was killed by one of the Al Quaida/Taliban factions – no surprise really as she was anathema to their wish to instate Sharia law in Pashtunistan. A secular woman in charge? No way, Jose.

The Govt security forces clearly weren’t fans either, but I think Musharraf is too canny to be linked, explicitly or implicitly, with her assassination – too much of a hot potato, especially when there are so many others that were willing to do the deed in his place, without links to him or his govt.

However, I also believe that Musharraf is guilty implicitly, by not allowing her the security she constantly asked for. By not treating her as a security risk, he dammned her to death. More fool him, as the whole mess has blown up in his face, and the international community is looking very hard at his regieme now, rather than just allowing him to do what he wants, when he wants.

Any way you look at it, its a total cluster$uck.

[nostradamus]

Maybe she is still alive and hiding out with Elvis, JFK, and Tupac. Maybe Allan is a pseudonym for Al-Qaeda. Maybe the real conspirators are the people who make the signs on buses, limos, and trains, that say “don’t stick hands, feet, or head out of window”.

Or maybe Benazir was just sick of living? I mean, she did stick her head out of the sun roof in a crowd of people after several previous assassination attempts. Did the CIA make her do that? The limo she was in was bullet-proof and bomb-proof, and the only one in the carload who was injured was the one who stuck her head out of the sunroof. No amount of security Musharraf provided could’ve saved her if she was willing to literally “stick her neck out”. That, to me, is the most suspicious thing of all: she seems to have played the biggest role in her own death.

If there are any Al-Qaeda posters on this board please give us your thoughts.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: Dude, why do I have to be al Qaeda? I’m Catholic, and I fear that having an affiliation with Osama might create some cognitive dissonance.

Besides, everyone knows that Elvis is manning the fry station at the Burger King in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Where’ve you been?

[nostradamus]

Sorry Allan, it was just my brainstorm of possible conspiracy theories.

I didn’t know that the King was working at Burger King, but it makes sense!

[nostradamus]

Sorry Allan, it was just my brainstorm of possible conspiracy theories.

I didn’t know that the King was working at Burger King, but it makes sense!

[nostradamus]

Sorry Allan, it was just my brainstorm of possible conspiracy theories.

I didn’t know that the King was working at Burger King, but it makes sense!

[nostradamus]

Sorry Allan, it was just my brainstorm of possible conspiracy theories.

I didn’t know that the King was working at Burger King, but it makes sense!

[nostradamus]

Sorry Allan, it was just my brainstorm of possible conspiracy theories.

I didn’t know that the King was working at Burger King, but it makes sense!

[NotCranky]

It seems impossible to figure out who is in bed with who , but now that you mention it Allan, I am sure the Pope has his turn. JK

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: You just gotta get those shots in on the Catholics, doncha?

The Pope is much busier with his job at the Illuminati, keeping an eye on the Knights Templar, and subverting Protestantism, Judaism, Islam and the Green Party, to be screwing around with this penny ante crap.

If you aren’t careful, I’m gonna give your name to Opus Dei, and then you’ll be in for it. You better watch it, buster, us Jesuits know people…

[NotCranky]

Rus: You just gotta get those shots in on the Catholics, doncha?

Not aimed at all Catholics just the ones worth saving ;).

“I’m gonna give your name to Opus Dei,”
You would probably be doing me a favor, if not for the depths of my heresy. The mission, as I understand it has worth and merit.

[nostradamus]

This pope doesn’t seem so scary to me… Seems like a pretty cool dude!

[img_assist|nid=6019|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=386|height=500]

[NotCranky]

You funny nostradamus! Lmao

El Papa and beer

[NotCranky]

You funny nostradamus! Lmao

El Papa and beer

[NotCranky]

You funny nostradamus! Lmao

El Papa and beer

[NotCranky]

You funny nostradamus! Lmao

El Papa and beer

[NotCranky]

You funny nostradamus! Lmao

El Papa and beer

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: Benefits of a German pope. Of course, his being a member of the Hitler Youth when he was young is something of a drawback, but I’m sure the Vatican PR corps has managed to suppress that somehow.

Rus: Opus Dei is actually a pretty interesting group, if perhaps a little too “involved” with the mission. And, when you have a Jesuit referring to someone else within the Mother Church as scary…

[NotCranky]

O.K. Allan I trust you, A Jewish girl I used to date tried lead me to St. Francis. Yeah, imagine that. She was probably being pretty insightful too, come to think of it.
She wanted Sai Baba to marry us, it was just a little too much for Rustico, who kept getting in trouble for calling Sai Baba “buck wheat”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I went to St. Francis! High school, that is. The Jesuits are instinctively mistrustful of Franciscans, especially with that “give up all your earthly possessions” nonsense. What’s up with that?

I am still not getting my head around a Jewish girl trying to lead you to Catholicism. Did she feel you weren’t a good fit for Judaism?

And who is this Sai Baba guy? He’s not the guy who invented Hawaiian BBQ, is he?

[NotCranky]

She wanted to marry an “American as Apple Pie”, Christian.
I looked the part, so she went to work on me. She did eventually succeed with someone else. Sai Baba was a guru with an AFRO, her guru. You can Google him, he is the guy dressed in Hare Krishna orange. It would not surprise me if modern day gurus were hawking BBQ-Sauce.

Maybe this guess as to her motivations will help you understand..
I think the girl was grateful that American, Christian boys had saved her relatives from Hitler but also was rebelling against her own traditions…except for the part about not shaving her under arms.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I dated a nice Jewish girl in high school. She was doing the same thing (rebelling against her parents and nice Jewish boys). I guess in her opinion nothing was worse than a not-so-nice Catholic boy (I was driving a muscle car at the time and had less than a pleasant personality). She appeared to be right, since her mom took an almost instant loathing to me. Good times.

Speaking of American Christian boys and the Third Reich: My dad and uncle were both forbidden to join the Army as that might entail fighting in Europe and possibly killing Germans. My Grandma was perfectly okay with them fighting with the Marines in the Pacific, though. I won’t get into any theories on that line of thinking.

Hey, Rus, happy new year. Hope you have a happy and prosperous new year.

[NotCranky]

Your dad served in WWII?Probably Korea? I have had somewhat close relationships with a few Filipinos of that generation. They certainly are appreciative of the efforts in the Pacific.
Happy new year to you too. I am looking forward to it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

My dad was with the Marines in both WWII and Korea, as was my uncle. My dad was a grunt, while my uncle was a fighter pilot (he’s the family glory boy).

[SD Transplant]

I just read some of the Euro news, and I found an article that states that Bhutto was clearly shot.

Here is the Youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjGTISsTy4I

[SD Transplant]

I just read some of the Euro news, and I found an article that states that Bhutto was clearly shot.

Here is the Youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjGTISsTy4I

[SD Transplant]

I just read some of the Euro news, and I found an article that states that Bhutto was clearly shot.

Here is the Youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjGTISsTy4I

[SD Transplant]

I just read some of the Euro news, and I found an article that states that Bhutto was clearly shot.

Here is the Youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjGTISsTy4I

[SD Transplant]

I just read some of the Euro news, and I found an article that states that Bhutto was clearly shot.

Here is the Youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjGTISsTy4I

[stockstradr]

“read Charlie Wilson’s War which details the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. It’s an incredible story and a fascinating read.”

I absolutely agree. And what are the lessons from that previous period of history?

What is the Great Dark Secret of history that Americans are too ignorant to know or too proud to discuss? Read this excerpt from an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser:

Q [Interviewer]: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

B[Zbigniew Brzezinski]: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

OK, so what is the Great Dark Secret?

THE FACTS
1) Carter, Brzezinski, and others in the administration decided back in July ’79 to fund covert CIA involvement in the Afghanistan civil war with the goal to give Russia a Vietnam-like failed war.
2) That conspiracy became wildly “successful” and many historians later concluded it not only gave Russia a Vietnam-like failed war (on a greater scale), but was a pivotal element in the collapse of the entire Soviet Union.
3) Afghanistan was the real victim and “paid” the price to the tune of over ONE MILLION Afghan lives and their country was reduced to rubble, all so that America could give Russia its Vietnam on Afghani soil.
4) America sent countless CIA operatives into Afghanistan during the war, to train Afghanis how to be terrorists against Russians in Afghanistan. America sent millions of dollars in weapons into Afghanistan. What downed the 333 Russian helicopters lost during that war? It was mostly American shoulder-fired missiles.
5) Osama bin Laden was trained to be a terrorist and gained his reputation during the Afghanistan war. He fought the Russians with weapons purchased with our tax dollars, and facts suggest he was trained in part by our CIA to be a terrorist. At that time he was viewed by our CIA as a key operative within Afghanistan. It is a FACT that many Afghans who later became key leaders in Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorist training camps, were in fact trained to be terrorists by our CIA with our tax dollars. Later, as Al Qaeda, they trained the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Our CIA taught the teachers. So what turned them from “terrorist friends of the USA” (who attack Russians) INTO Al Qaeda terrorists who hate and attack Americans?

That is the first part of the Great Dark Secret. Here comes the second part…

6) After the Russian withdrawal, America turned its back on Afghanistan and abandoned that country in the middle of their frigid winter…with its million dead, many more million wounded, and all of Afghanistan reduced to rubble.

From the Afghan perspective, America betrayed Afghanistan after Afghanistan had made the ultimate sacrifice so that America could give Russia its Vietnam. Our CIA trained thousands to be terrorists and funded the Afghanistan war so they could hone their skills. Then America really pissed them off, made those terrorists hate our guts – at a time when those killers were looking for something to attack (because their civil war was over)

If you understand that (and also America’s support for Israel), then you understand the root causes behind the very birth of Al Qaeda, and the 9/11 attacks upon the USA.

So what has America done recently in Afghanistan after 9/11? We had another war on their soil, reducing their country AGAIN to rubble, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Afghans. Then we abandoned their country again so that we could go stage an unwarranted attack against Iraq. That IS history repeating itself in Afghanistan..and now in Iraq.

What America should have done after 9/11 is not destroy Afghanistan but instead completely rebuild Afghanistan, which would have been keeping our promise (and moral debt) to Afghanistan.

What is really scary is how few Americans understand the above history.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

What is really scary is if anyone believes that nonsense.

Carter and the CIA intentionally funded an operation to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan, and solely for the purpose of creating a “Vietnam-like” war for the Russians? Yow.

And the Soviet desire for a warm water port, along with their stated intent of suppressing the growing Islamic influence within their borders had nothing to do with it?

Soviet contingency plans for the invasion of Afghanistan had been on the books for over ten years, and actually spanned further than that when one considers the Soviet concerns over potential Islamic uprisings in their Central Asian provinces. The war in Chechnya is an excellent example of this.

The Carter Administration was exemplified by the Desert One debacle in the deserts of Iran. Carter was completely buffaloed by the Russians and the invasion of Afghanistan caught the administration completely by surprise. The notion that Carter and the CIA were behind some sort of master plan like the one articulated above is laughable, and totally at odds with history.

The book “The Sword and the Shield” details KGB operations at length, and is written by a ranking KGB officer with over 30 years experience. Read the section on the Afghan invasion and then juxtapose it with the quaint little tale you’ve spun.

[XBoxBoy]

Allan,

You mock stockstradr’s post claiming: “What is really scary is if anyone believes that nonsense.”

Then you only go on to point out that the Soviets went into Afghanistan before Carter and the CIA started funding rebels. Personally, I took stockstradr’s post to imply that after the Soviets invaded, the CIA was able to pull the Soviets farther into a quagmire by funding the Afghan rebels, not that the CIA and Carter were the reason the Soviets went into Afghanistan in the first place.

But, my real question is, given that you have called stockstradr’s post nonsense, are you in dispute with his other points? Particularly:

The CIA war in Afghanistan was able to cause the Soviets significant Vietnam like problems. (Loss of lives, loss of prestige, wasted money, etc.)

The CIA was responsible for arming and training many Jihadist that later turned on the USA. (Including most notably Osama Bin-Laden)

That after the war against the Soviets, the USA did little if anything to help the Afghans rebuild their country?

And then finally, is stockstradr’s suggestion that the USA should have done more to help rebuild Afghanistan, part of the nonsense you are objecting to? (Particularly in light of what has happened in recent years with 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA)

If you are indeed calling stockstradr’s post nonsense, can you explain why you feel these points that he brought up are nonsense? I’m no expert on Afghanistan but I am under the impression that the above points are mostly on target.

Perhaps your objection is to Carter, since you seem kinda negative about him. (Which is okay by me) In that case, I doubly recommend reading Charlie Wilson’s War which overwhelmingly points out that the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan had very little support from Carter, but was overwhelmingly driven by one congressman, Charlie Wilson.

And BTW, I’m can’t really speak for stockstradr, but I don’t think his point is that Carter and the CIA had a some master plan as you suggest. I think his point was that the USA and the CIA were a lot more involved in turning it into and then leaving Afghanistan in the mess that is today than most American understand. Not that the USA started this mess. And, so finally I ask the question which is do you dispute the USA’s role here? If so, can you explain?

XBoxBoy

[Allan from Fallbrook]

XBoxBoy: Fair enough. Let me clarify what I meant. I do NOT believe that Carter and the CIA had a master plan to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan. I DO believe that once the Russians were there, we did our utmost to bleed them white. Having worked with SOF guys who supplied the Muj fighters with Stinger missiles (and gave them the know-how to use them) I know that we were heavily involved in the area and the effort.

Do I think we bailed out after the Russians did? Sadly, yes I do.

I don’t give Carter any credit, because he deserves none. I think Charlie Wilson is a stud, as I believe many of the individual field officers (CIA) and SOF guys were as well. I think the situation was driven by the expedient issues at the time and, once the objective was achieved, we took off.

I get irritated whenever I hear the mantra start about an “unwarranted war”, and the presumption of some perfidious neocon plot to rule the world. In that part of the world, at that time, it was basically a continuation of “The Great Game” started by the British 150 years earlier. We were seeking to head off Soviet influence, maintain an acceptable balance of power, and protect the free flow of oil.

I think Carter did us irreparable harm in both that part of the world, and in dealing with the Soviet threat, specifically the various wars by proxy that the Russians were waging at the time.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

And if my post had a mocking tone, I apologize. I clearly let my irritation get the better of me, and that is wrong.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Following is pulled directly from stockstradr's posting: 

What is the Great Dark Secret of history that Americans are too ignorant to know or too proud to discuss?

Read this excerpt from an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser:

Q [Interviewer]: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B[Zbigniew Brzezinski]: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

OK, so what is the Great Dark Secret? THE FACTS 1) Carter, Brzezinski, and others in the administration decided back in July '79 to fund covert CIA involvement in the Afghanistan civil war with the goal to give Russia a Vietnam-like failed war. 2) That conspiracy became wildly "successful" and many historians later concluded it not only gave Russia a Vietnam-like failed war (on a greater scale), but was a pivotal element in the collapse of the entire Soviet Union. 3) Afghanistan was the real victim and "paid" the price to the tune of over ONE MILLION Afghan lives and their country was reduced to rubble, all so that America could give Russia its Vietnam on Afghani soil. 4) America sent countless CIA operatives into Afghanistan during the war, to train Afghanis how to be terrorists against Russians in Afghanistan. America sent millions of dollars in weapons into Afghanistan. What downed the 333 Russian helicopters lost during that war? 

This passage asserts not only did the Carter Administration fund and support a secret war inside Afghanistan, but that the Soviets invaded because of it's existence.  However, Brzezinski is unclear as to whether or not the operations plan existed prior to the Russian invasion.  It would certainly appear to be the case, if the Soviet response was driven by their desire to foil said secret war.

So, which is it?  The timing would seem to indicate we became involved following, as would the phrasing of Brzezinski's letter to President Carter, but the way he describes events contradicts that timing, and make it appear that the Soviets became aware of this secret war and then invaded following.

History tells a different story, especially as regards the Carter Administration's handling of special warfare missions and covert operations.  I mentioned the Desert One debacle because it underscores the point that Carter hamstrung not only our conventional military capabilities, but also gutted our SOF and covert programs as well.  It strains credulity to see his hand behind the anti-Soviet effort in Afghanistan.  

     

[XBoxBoy]

Allan,

Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree as to what happened in Afghanistan. As to Brzezinski, my impression is he’s doing what lots of people do. ie. after the fact he changes details to cast himself in a better light.

From what little I know, the Carter admin was not particularly supportive of the CIA, it’s covert operations, nor funding to the rebels in Afghanistan. But whether they were supportive or not, is kinda moot. The USA did fund the war and that’s fairly easy to document.

My only real point of disagreement then is whether we should have done what we did. I get the sense you supported what we did, and that you feel we probably should have done more. Sorry, but I disagree. However, since I’m not inclined to get into the lengthy debate about the value vs. the cost of covert operations, and the history of such, I’ll just leave it with I disagree, and hope you’ll agree to disagree on whether we should or should not have done what we did. Besides, in the end, that’s totally moot. We did it, and we will probably do it again. No one cares whether I support it or not. Such is life.

XBoxBoy

[Allan from Fallbrook]

XBoxBoy: I don’t wholeheartedly support US covert ops without reservation. Pragmatically speaking, it sometimes comes down to a choice between us and them. As I have opined before, it is rarely a choice of good versus bad; often, it is between bad and worse.

Unfortunately, that has put us in bed with some poor choices as far as partners or allies go. As you say, such is life.

I know that we have often bungled when it comes to covert ops and CIA involvement in foreign affairs. When I was down south during my days there, I had quite a few WTF-type moments. Between Noreiga and the Duartes and the Contras, we weren’t exactly playing with people that you could sell as pro-democracy/pro-freedom. We played with the hand we were dealt, and the opposing choices were far worse (imho).

I was told by an old hand who had been through Vietnam, and the days of the Shah, and had pretty much seen and done it all, that the biggest mistake you could make was to “give a shit about the indigs (indigenous people in the region)”. Pretty terrible sentiment, but an unfortunate fact given the circumstances.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

XBoxBoy: I don’t wholeheartedly support US covert ops without reservation. Pragmatically speaking, it sometimes comes down to a choice between us and them. As I have opined before, it is rarely a choice of good versus bad; often, it is between bad and worse.

Unfortunately, that has put us in bed with some poor choices as far as partners or allies go. As you say, such is life.

I know that we have often bungled when it comes to covert ops and CIA involvement in foreign affairs. When I was down south during my days there, I had quite a few WTF-type moments. Between Noreiga and the Duartes and the Contras, we weren’t exactly playing with people that you could sell as pro-democracy/pro-freedom. We played with the hand we were dealt, and the opposing choices were far worse (imho).

I was told by an old hand who had been through Vietnam, and the days of the Shah, and had pretty much seen and done it all, that the biggest mistake you could make was to “give a shit about the indigs (indigenous people in the region)”. Pretty terrible sentiment, but an unfortunate fact given the circumstances.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

XBoxBoy: I don’t wholeheartedly support US covert ops without reservation. Pragmatically speaking, it sometimes comes down to a choice between us and them. As I have opined before, it is rarely a choice of good versus bad; often, it is between bad and worse.

Unfortunately, that has put us in bed with some poor choices as far as partners or allies go. As you say, such is life.

I know that we have often bungled when it comes to covert ops and CIA involvement in foreign affairs. When I was down south during my days there, I had quite a few WTF-type moments. Between Noreiga and the Duartes and the Contras, we weren’t exactly playing with people that you could sell as pro-democracy/pro-freedom. We played with the hand we were dealt, and the opposing choices were far worse (imho).

I was told by an old hand who had been through Vietnam, and the days of the Shah, and had pretty much seen and done it all, that the biggest mistake you could make was to “give a shit about the indigs (indigenous people in the region)”. Pretty terrible sentiment, but an unfortunate fact given the circumstances.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

XBoxBoy: I don’t wholeheartedly support US covert ops without reservation. Pragmatically speaking, it sometimes comes down to a choice between us and them. As I have opined before, it is rarely a choice of good versus bad; often, it is between bad and worse.

Unfortunately, that has put us in bed with some poor choices as far as partners or allies go. As you say, such is life.

I know that we have often bungled when it comes to covert ops and CIA involvement in foreign affairs. When I was down south during my days there, I had quite a few WTF-type moments. Between Noreiga and the Duartes and the Contras, we weren’t exactly playing with people that you could sell as pro-democracy/pro-freedom. We played with the hand we were dealt, and the opposing choices were far worse (imho).

I was told by an old hand who had been through Vietnam, and the days of the Shah, and had pretty much seen and done it all, that the biggest mistake you could make was to “give a shit about the indigs (indigenous people in the region)”. Pretty terrible sentiment, but an unfortunate fact given the circumstances.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

XBoxBoy: I don’t wholeheartedly support US covert ops without reservation. Pragmatically speaking, it sometimes comes down to a choice between us and them. As I have opined before, it is rarely a choice of good versus bad; often, it is between bad and worse.

Unfortunately, that has put us in bed with some poor choices as far as partners or allies go. As you say, such is life.

I know that we have often bungled when it comes to covert ops and CIA involvement in foreign affairs. When I was down south during my days there, I had quite a few WTF-type moments. Between Noreiga and the Duartes and the Contras, we weren’t exactly playing with people that you could sell as pro-democracy/pro-freedom. We played with the hand we were dealt, and the opposing choices were far worse (imho).

I was told by an old hand who had been through Vietnam, and the days of the Shah, and had pretty much seen and done it all, that the biggest mistake you could make was to “give a shit about the indigs (indigenous people in the region)”. Pretty terrible sentiment, but an unfortunate fact given the circumstances.

[nostradamus]

Hi Allan,

Yes Guate is a quagmire of CIA and Mossad activity. I see the Galil is basically a modified AK.

I also spent time in Honduras and Salvador and every other central American country (only for about 6 months total). Maybe we should share stories over a nice bowl of ceviche and a few bottles of Gallo! 😉

Have you seen this new Israeli hardware which shoots around corners? I’m surprised nobody though of it sooner, it’s quite simple really. I’d hate to wake up seeing one of these poking thru the window.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: Actually the Germans did. The Germans being the other excellent weapons and hardware manufacturer (H&K, Steyr, Walther, etc). During WWII, they did quite a bit of research and actually developed a variant of the MP40 for this purpose.

I got to field test the Galil SAR. Excellent weapon, all the way around. I especially like the integrated bipod and oversized charging handle (which you can use from either side of the weapon, and with either hand). Built like a brick s**thouse, with a much better gas system than the AK, AKM or AKS models. The Finnish Valmet is another really nice AK variant.

[nostradamus]

The Galil is interesting to me because I’m a lefty but like many I got used to doing many things right-handed. I tried an AK once and was impressed, it fully penetrated a 2′ oak tree stump like butter. Definitely something I’d want around in a post-apocalyptic zombie battle but for now I got rid of it.

[nostradamus]

The Galil is interesting to me because I’m a lefty but like many I got used to doing many things right-handed. I tried an AK once and was impressed, it fully penetrated a 2′ oak tree stump like butter. Definitely something I’d want around in a post-apocalyptic zombie battle but for now I got rid of it.

[nostradamus]

The Galil is interesting to me because I’m a lefty but like many I got used to doing many things right-handed. I tried an AK once and was impressed, it fully penetrated a 2′ oak tree stump like butter. Definitely something I’d want around in a post-apocalyptic zombie battle but for now I got rid of it.

[nostradamus]

The Galil is interesting to me because I’m a lefty but like many I got used to doing many things right-handed. I tried an AK once and was impressed, it fully penetrated a 2′ oak tree stump like butter. Definitely something I’d want around in a post-apocalyptic zombie battle but for now I got rid of it.

[nostradamus]

The Galil is interesting to me because I’m a lefty but like many I got used to doing many things right-handed. I tried an AK once and was impressed, it fully penetrated a 2′ oak tree stump like butter. Definitely something I’d want around in a post-apocalyptic zombie battle but for now I got rid of it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: Actually the Germans did. The Germans being the other excellent weapons and hardware manufacturer (H&K, Steyr, Walther, etc). During WWII, they did quite a bit of research and actually developed a variant of the MP40 for this purpose.

I got to field test the Galil SAR. Excellent weapon, all the way around. I especially like the integrated bipod and oversized charging handle (which you can use from either side of the weapon, and with either hand). Built like a brick s**thouse, with a much better gas system than the AK, AKM or AKS models. The Finnish Valmet is another really nice AK variant.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: Actually the Germans did. The Germans being the other excellent weapons and hardware manufacturer (H&K, Steyr, Walther, etc). During WWII, they did quite a bit of research and actually developed a variant of the MP40 for this purpose.

I got to field test the Galil SAR. Excellent weapon, all the way around. I especially like the integrated bipod and oversized charging handle (which you can use from either side of the weapon, and with either hand). Built like a brick s**thouse, with a much better gas system than the AK, AKM or AKS models. The Finnish Valmet is another really nice AK variant.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: Actually the Germans did. The Germans being the other excellent weapons and hardware manufacturer (H&K, Steyr, Walther, etc). During WWII, they did quite a bit of research and actually developed a variant of the MP40 for this purpose.

I got to field test the Galil SAR. Excellent weapon, all the way around. I especially like the integrated bipod and oversized charging handle (which you can use from either side of the weapon, and with either hand). Built like a brick s**thouse, with a much better gas system than the AK, AKM or AKS models. The Finnish Valmet is another really nice AK variant.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: Actually the Germans did. The Germans being the other excellent weapons and hardware manufacturer (H&K, Steyr, Walther, etc). During WWII, they did quite a bit of research and actually developed a variant of the MP40 for this purpose.

I got to field test the Galil SAR. Excellent weapon, all the way around. I especially like the integrated bipod and oversized charging handle (which you can use from either side of the weapon, and with either hand). Built like a brick s**thouse, with a much better gas system than the AK, AKM or AKS models. The Finnish Valmet is another really nice AK variant.

[CardiffBaseball]

Allen my wife grew up Honduras as a missionary kid. After heading to college the family did a few years in Panama City and finished up in Guatemala for the last 5 years before retiring. As an aside she took my sons on a trip to Guatemala City around ’99 which made me a little nervous.. but I digress.

Anyway, what they tell me is that there are many high society (bankers, etc.) types in that region that are Palestinian and Lebanese Christians who fled the middle east. According to my in-laws these folks tend to hate Israel probably more than they do the Islamic nations.

Now I always assumed this to be the case, because it doesn’t seem like they’d make that up. In reading your information about others that are there, are some of these places soon to be hotbeds of more violent activity? Or is the Palestinian and Lebanese Arab influence not as large as they might have thought. On the surface there would seemingly be some incompatibilities there, however if the Mossad types are not as involved in the day-to-day life of those nations I suppose everything will be fine.

[nostradamus]

I’m no expert and I deserve backlash for this comment if it is wrong but I see Palestinians as unsophisticated tools that are too easily used by greater powers (mainly Syria and Iran). Palestinians seem emotional and patriotic to whatever cause seems right at the moment. Give ’em a gun, give ’em a cause, and send them over to whomever you dislike. The Palestinians have long suffered from being used as such. They’ve got heart but really need good leadership to guide them away from being the pawns of the anti-Israeli world. The only people who profit from this conflict are weapons suppliers and war mongers.

Jordanians and Lenabese have slaughtered more Palestinians and stolen more land from the Palestinians than the Israelis but you don’t hear about this often. Who would you guess has killed the most Palestinians?

A. Israelis
B. Lebanese
C. Jordanians
D. Palestinians

[Allan from Fallbrook]

CardiffBaseball: I don’t think you are going to see any flareups related to the middle eastern immigrant population, but it has been a while since I have been there. As an interesting aside, a friend of mine was telling me that al Qaeda has a significant presence in Mexico (mainly for training). For some reason, this made perfect sense to me. This is also someone who would know, and based the observation on solid field intel.

Nost: While your comment might generate some blowback, I agree with you. Anyone who cares to can read up on the Jordanian expulsion of the Palestinians, their treatment by the Saudis, as well as how effectively Yasir Arafat hijacked the “revolution” for his own ends.

It’s interesting to note that Arafat died a billionaire. What makes that more interesting is that the money in question was not used to build schools or hospitals or help with basic and necessary social services. Instead it was earmarked for terrorist activities, and to keep Arafat and his Palestinian Authority buddies in power.

Mentioning this, however, sends most lefties into a tizzy, and is rejoined sharply by accusations of supporting the “Zionists” and the “American Empire”.

The Palestinians have been very effectively used as both a propaganda tool, and cannon fodder.

As far as the AK goes: It is the best assault rifle ever made, bar none. We used to capture AKs with mud in the action, and fouled gas tubes, and covered in rust. Damn things functioned flawlessly. The M16 (“if it’s Mattel, it’s swell”) on the other hand, had to be cleaned religiously (up to three times a day in the jungle) and would malfunction if you looked at it wrong. Don’t get me started on the history of that misbegotten hunk of junk.

[stockstradr]

XBoxBoy says…

Personally, I took stockstradr’s post to imply that after the Soviets invaded, the CIA was able to pull the Soviets farther into a quagmire by funding the Afghan rebels, not that the CIA and Carter were the reason the Soviets went into Afghanistan in the first place.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I was implying. Thank you.

[stockstradr]

XBoxBoy says…

Personally, I took stockstradr’s post to imply that after the Soviets invaded, the CIA was able to pull the Soviets farther into a quagmire by funding the Afghan rebels, not that the CIA and Carter were the reason the Soviets went into Afghanistan in the first place.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I was implying. Thank you.

[stockstradr]

XBoxBoy says…

Personally, I took stockstradr’s post to imply that after the Soviets invaded, the CIA was able to pull the Soviets farther into a quagmire by funding the Afghan rebels, not that the CIA and Carter were the reason the Soviets went into Afghanistan in the first place.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I was implying. Thank you.

[stockstradr]

XBoxBoy says…

Personally, I took stockstradr’s post to imply that after the Soviets invaded, the CIA was able to pull the Soviets farther into a quagmire by funding the Afghan rebels, not that the CIA and Carter were the reason the Soviets went into Afghanistan in the first place.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I was implying. Thank you.

[stockstradr]

XBoxBoy says…

Personally, I took stockstradr’s post to imply that after the Soviets invaded, the CIA was able to pull the Soviets farther into a quagmire by funding the Afghan rebels, not that the CIA and Carter were the reason the Soviets went into Afghanistan in the first place.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I was implying. Thank you.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

CardiffBaseball: I don’t think you are going to see any flareups related to the middle eastern immigrant population, but it has been a while since I have been there. As an interesting aside, a friend of mine was telling me that al Qaeda has a significant presence in Mexico (mainly for training). For some reason, this made perfect sense to me. This is also someone who would know, and based the observation on solid field intel.

Nost: While your comment might generate some blowback, I agree with you. Anyone who cares to can read up on the Jordanian expulsion of the Palestinians, their treatment by the Saudis, as well as how effectively Yasir Arafat hijacked the “revolution” for his own ends.

It’s interesting to note that Arafat died a billionaire. What makes that more interesting is that the money in question was not used to build schools or hospitals or help with basic and necessary social services. Instead it was earmarked for terrorist activities, and to keep Arafat and his Palestinian Authority buddies in power.

Mentioning this, however, sends most lefties into a tizzy, and is rejoined sharply by accusations of supporting the “Zionists” and the “American Empire”.

The Palestinians have been very effectively used as both a propaganda tool, and cannon fodder.

As far as the AK goes: It is the best assault rifle ever made, bar none. We used to capture AKs with mud in the action, and fouled gas tubes, and covered in rust. Damn things functioned flawlessly. The M16 (“if it’s Mattel, it’s swell”) on the other hand, had to be cleaned religiously (up to three times a day in the jungle) and would malfunction if you looked at it wrong. Don’t get me started on the history of that misbegotten hunk of junk.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

CardiffBaseball: I don’t think you are going to see any flareups related to the middle eastern immigrant population, but it has been a while since I have been there. As an interesting aside, a friend of mine was telling me that al Qaeda has a significant presence in Mexico (mainly for training). For some reason, this made perfect sense to me. This is also someone who would know, and based the observation on solid field intel.

Nost: While your comment might generate some blowback, I agree with you. Anyone who cares to can read up on the Jordanian expulsion of the Palestinians, their treatment by the Saudis, as well as how effectively Yasir Arafat hijacked the “revolution” for his own ends.

It’s interesting to note that Arafat died a billionaire. What makes that more interesting is that the money in question was not used to build schools or hospitals or help with basic and necessary social services. Instead it was earmarked for terrorist activities, and to keep Arafat and his Palestinian Authority buddies in power.

Mentioning this, however, sends most lefties into a tizzy, and is rejoined sharply by accusations of supporting the “Zionists” and the “American Empire”.

The Palestinians have been very effectively used as both a propaganda tool, and cannon fodder.

As far as the AK goes: It is the best assault rifle ever made, bar none. We used to capture AKs with mud in the action, and fouled gas tubes, and covered in rust. Damn things functioned flawlessly. The M16 (“if it’s Mattel, it’s swell”) on the other hand, had to be cleaned religiously (up to three times a day in the jungle) and would malfunction if you looked at it wrong. Don’t get me started on the history of that misbegotten hunk of junk.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

CardiffBaseball: I don’t think you are going to see any flareups related to the middle eastern immigrant population, but it has been a while since I have been there. As an interesting aside, a friend of mine was telling me that al Qaeda has a significant presence in Mexico (mainly for training). For some reason, this made perfect sense to me. This is also someone who would know, and based the observation on solid field intel.

Nost: While your comment might generate some blowback, I agree with you. Anyone who cares to can read up on the Jordanian expulsion of the Palestinians, their treatment by the Saudis, as well as how effectively Yasir Arafat hijacked the “revolution” for his own ends.

It’s interesting to note that Arafat died a billionaire. What makes that more interesting is that the money in question was not used to build schools or hospitals or help with basic and necessary social services. Instead it was earmarked for terrorist activities, and to keep Arafat and his Palestinian Authority buddies in power.

Mentioning this, however, sends most lefties into a tizzy, and is rejoined sharply by accusations of supporting the “Zionists” and the “American Empire”.

The Palestinians have been very effectively used as both a propaganda tool, and cannon fodder.

As far as the AK goes: It is the best assault rifle ever made, bar none. We used to capture AKs with mud in the action, and fouled gas tubes, and covered in rust. Damn things functioned flawlessly. The M16 (“if it’s Mattel, it’s swell”) on the other hand, had to be cleaned religiously (up to three times a day in the jungle) and would malfunction if you looked at it wrong. Don’t get me started on the history of that misbegotten hunk of junk.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

CardiffBaseball: I don’t think you are going to see any flareups related to the middle eastern immigrant population, but it has been a while since I have been there. As an interesting aside, a friend of mine was telling me that al Qaeda has a significant presence in Mexico (mainly for training). For some reason, this made perfect sense to me. This is also someone who would know, and based the observation on solid field intel.

Nost: While your comment might generate some blowback, I agree with you. Anyone who cares to can read up on the Jordanian expulsion of the Palestinians, their treatment by the Saudis, as well as how effectively Yasir Arafat hijacked the “revolution” for his own ends.

It’s interesting to note that Arafat died a billionaire. What makes that more interesting is that the money in question was not used to build schools or hospitals or help with basic and necessary social services. Instead it was earmarked for terrorist activities, and to keep Arafat and his Palestinian Authority buddies in power.

Mentioning this, however, sends most lefties into a tizzy, and is rejoined sharply by accusations of supporting the “Zionists” and the “American Empire”.

The Palestinians have been very effectively used as both a propaganda tool, and cannon fodder.

As far as the AK goes: It is the best assault rifle ever made, bar none. We used to capture AKs with mud in the action, and fouled gas tubes, and covered in rust. Damn things functioned flawlessly. The M16 (“if it’s Mattel, it’s swell”) on the other hand, had to be cleaned religiously (up to three times a day in the jungle) and would malfunction if you looked at it wrong. Don’t get me started on the history of that misbegotten hunk of junk.

[nostradamus]

I’m no expert and I deserve backlash for this comment if it is wrong but I see Palestinians as unsophisticated tools that are too easily used by greater powers (mainly Syria and Iran). Palestinians seem emotional and patriotic to whatever cause seems right at the moment. Give ’em a gun, give ’em a cause, and send them over to whomever you dislike. The Palestinians have long suffered from being used as such. They’ve got heart but really need good leadership to guide them away from being the pawns of the anti-Israeli world. The only people who profit from this conflict are weapons suppliers and war mongers.

Jordanians and Lenabese have slaughtered more Palestinians and stolen more land from the Palestinians than the Israelis but you don’t hear about this often. Who would you guess has killed the most Palestinians?

A. Israelis
B. Lebanese
C. Jordanians
D. Palestinians

[nostradamus]

I’m no expert and I deserve backlash for this comment if it is wrong but I see Palestinians as unsophisticated tools that are too easily used by greater powers (mainly Syria and Iran). Palestinians seem emotional and patriotic to whatever cause seems right at the moment. Give ’em a gun, give ’em a cause, and send them over to whomever you dislike. The Palestinians have long suffered from being used as such. They’ve got heart but really need good leadership to guide them away from being the pawns of the anti-Israeli world. The only people who profit from this conflict are weapons suppliers and war mongers.

Jordanians and Lenabese have slaughtered more Palestinians and stolen more land from the Palestinians than the Israelis but you don’t hear about this often. Who would you guess has killed the most Palestinians?

A. Israelis
B. Lebanese
C. Jordanians
D. Palestinians

[nostradamus]

I’m no expert and I deserve backlash for this comment if it is wrong but I see Palestinians as unsophisticated tools that are too easily used by greater powers (mainly Syria and Iran). Palestinians seem emotional and patriotic to whatever cause seems right at the moment. Give ’em a gun, give ’em a cause, and send them over to whomever you dislike. The Palestinians have long suffered from being used as such. They’ve got heart but really need good leadership to guide them away from being the pawns of the anti-Israeli world. The only people who profit from this conflict are weapons suppliers and war mongers.

Jordanians and Lenabese have slaughtered more Palestinians and stolen more land from the Palestinians than the Israelis but you don’t hear about this often. Who would you guess has killed the most Palestinians?

A. Israelis
B. Lebanese
C. Jordanians
D. Palestinians

[nostradamus]

I’m no expert and I deserve backlash for this comment if it is wrong but I see Palestinians as unsophisticated tools that are too easily used by greater powers (mainly Syria and Iran). Palestinians seem emotional and patriotic to whatever cause seems right at the moment. Give ’em a gun, give ’em a cause, and send them over to whomever you dislike. The Palestinians have long suffered from being used as such. They’ve got heart but really need good leadership to guide them away from being the pawns of the anti-Israeli world. The only people who profit from this conflict are weapons suppliers and war mongers.

Jordanians and Lenabese have slaughtered more Palestinians and stolen more land from the Palestinians than the Israelis but you don’t hear about this often. Who would you guess has killed the most Palestinians?

A. Israelis
B. Lebanese
C. Jordanians
D. Palestinians

[CardiffBaseball]

Allen my wife grew up Honduras as a missionary kid. After heading to college the family did a few years in Panama City and finished up in Guatemala for the last 5 years before retiring. As an aside she took my sons on a trip to Guatemala City around ’99 which made me a little nervous.. but I digress.

Anyway, what they tell me is that there are many high society (bankers, etc.) types in that region that are Palestinian and Lebanese Christians who fled the middle east. According to my in-laws these folks tend to hate Israel probably more than they do the Islamic nations.

Now I always assumed this to be the case, because it doesn’t seem like they’d make that up. In reading your information about others that are there, are some of these places soon to be hotbeds of more violent activity? Or is the Palestinian and Lebanese Arab influence not as large as they might have thought. On the surface there would seemingly be some incompatibilities there, however if the Mossad types are not as involved in the day-to-day life of those nations I suppose everything will be fine.

[CardiffBaseball]

Allen my wife grew up Honduras as a missionary kid. After heading to college the family did a few years in Panama City and finished up in Guatemala for the last 5 years before retiring. As an aside she took my sons on a trip to Guatemala City around ’99 which made me a little nervous.. but I digress.

Anyway, what they tell me is that there are many high society (bankers, etc.) types in that region that are Palestinian and Lebanese Christians who fled the middle east. According to my in-laws these folks tend to hate Israel probably more than they do the Islamic nations.

Now I always assumed this to be the case, because it doesn’t seem like they’d make that up. In reading your information about others that are there, are some of these places soon to be hotbeds of more violent activity? Or is the Palestinian and Lebanese Arab influence not as large as they might have thought. On the surface there would seemingly be some incompatibilities there, however if the Mossad types are not as involved in the day-to-day life of those nations I suppose everything will be fine.

[CardiffBaseball]

Allen my wife grew up Honduras as a missionary kid. After heading to college the family did a few years in Panama City and finished up in Guatemala for the last 5 years before retiring. As an aside she took my sons on a trip to Guatemala City around ’99 which made me a little nervous.. but I digress.

Anyway, what they tell me is that there are many high society (bankers, etc.) types in that region that are Palestinian and Lebanese Christians who fled the middle east. According to my in-laws these folks tend to hate Israel probably more than they do the Islamic nations.

Now I always assumed this to be the case, because it doesn’t seem like they’d make that up. In reading your information about others that are there, are some of these places soon to be hotbeds of more violent activity? Or is the Palestinian and Lebanese Arab influence not as large as they might have thought. On the surface there would seemingly be some incompatibilities there, however if the Mossad types are not as involved in the day-to-day life of those nations I suppose everything will be fine.

[CardiffBaseball]

Allen my wife grew up Honduras as a missionary kid. After heading to college the family did a few years in Panama City and finished up in Guatemala for the last 5 years before retiring. As an aside she took my sons on a trip to Guatemala City around ’99 which made me a little nervous.. but I digress.

Anyway, what they tell me is that there are many high society (bankers, etc.) types in that region that are Palestinian and Lebanese Christians who fled the middle east. According to my in-laws these folks tend to hate Israel probably more than they do the Islamic nations.

Now I always assumed this to be the case, because it doesn’t seem like they’d make that up. In reading your information about others that are there, are some of these places soon to be hotbeds of more violent activity? Or is the Palestinian and Lebanese Arab influence not as large as they might have thought. On the surface there would seemingly be some incompatibilities there, however if the Mossad types are not as involved in the day-to-day life of those nations I suppose everything will be fine.

[nostradamus]

Hi Allan,

Yes Guate is a quagmire of CIA and Mossad activity. I see the Galil is basically a modified AK.

I also spent time in Honduras and Salvador and every other central American country (only for about 6 months total). Maybe we should share stories over a nice bowl of ceviche and a few bottles of Gallo! 😉

Have you seen this new Israeli hardware which shoots around corners? I’m surprised nobody though of it sooner, it’s quite simple really. I’d hate to wake up seeing one of these poking thru the window.

[nostradamus]

Hi Allan,

Yes Guate is a quagmire of CIA and Mossad activity. I see the Galil is basically a modified AK.

I also spent time in Honduras and Salvador and every other central American country (only for about 6 months total). Maybe we should share stories over a nice bowl of ceviche and a few bottles of Gallo! 😉

Have you seen this new Israeli hardware which shoots around corners? I’m surprised nobody though of it sooner, it’s quite simple really. I’d hate to wake up seeing one of these poking thru the window.

[nostradamus]

Hi Allan,

Yes Guate is a quagmire of CIA and Mossad activity. I see the Galil is basically a modified AK.

I also spent time in Honduras and Salvador and every other central American country (only for about 6 months total). Maybe we should share stories over a nice bowl of ceviche and a few bottles of Gallo! 😉

Have you seen this new Israeli hardware which shoots around corners? I’m surprised nobody though of it sooner, it’s quite simple really. I’d hate to wake up seeing one of these poking thru the window.

[nostradamus]

Hi Allan,

Yes Guate is a quagmire of CIA and Mossad activity. I see the Galil is basically a modified AK.

I also spent time in Honduras and Salvador and every other central American country (only for about 6 months total). Maybe we should share stories over a nice bowl of ceviche and a few bottles of Gallo! 😉

Have you seen this new Israeli hardware which shoots around corners? I’m surprised nobody though of it sooner, it’s quite simple really. I’d hate to wake up seeing one of these poking thru the window.

[XBoxBoy]

Allan,

Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree as to what happened in Afghanistan. As to Brzezinski, my impression is he’s doing what lots of people do. ie. after the fact he changes details to cast himself in a better light.

From what little I know, the Carter admin was not particularly supportive of the CIA, it’s covert operations, nor funding to the rebels in Afghanistan. But whether they were supportive or not, is kinda moot. The USA did fund the war and that’s fairly easy to document.

My only real point of disagreement then is whether we should have done what we did. I get the sense you supported what we did, and that you feel we probably should have done more. Sorry, but I disagree. However, since I’m not inclined to get into the lengthy debate about the value vs. the cost of covert operations, and the history of such, I’ll just leave it with I disagree, and hope you’ll agree to disagree on whether we should or should not have done what we did. Besides, in the end, that’s totally moot. We did it, and we will probably do it again. No one cares whether I support it or not. Such is life.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Allan,

Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree as to what happened in Afghanistan. As to Brzezinski, my impression is he’s doing what lots of people do. ie. after the fact he changes details to cast himself in a better light.

From what little I know, the Carter admin was not particularly supportive of the CIA, it’s covert operations, nor funding to the rebels in Afghanistan. But whether they were supportive or not, is kinda moot. The USA did fund the war and that’s fairly easy to document.

My only real point of disagreement then is whether we should have done what we did. I get the sense you supported what we did, and that you feel we probably should have done more. Sorry, but I disagree. However, since I’m not inclined to get into the lengthy debate about the value vs. the cost of covert operations, and the history of such, I’ll just leave it with I disagree, and hope you’ll agree to disagree on whether we should or should not have done what we did. Besides, in the end, that’s totally moot. We did it, and we will probably do it again. No one cares whether I support it or not. Such is life.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Allan,

Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree as to what happened in Afghanistan. As to Brzezinski, my impression is he’s doing what lots of people do. ie. after the fact he changes details to cast himself in a better light.

From what little I know, the Carter admin was not particularly supportive of the CIA, it’s covert operations, nor funding to the rebels in Afghanistan. But whether they were supportive or not, is kinda moot. The USA did fund the war and that’s fairly easy to document.

My only real point of disagreement then is whether we should have done what we did. I get the sense you supported what we did, and that you feel we probably should have done more. Sorry, but I disagree. However, since I’m not inclined to get into the lengthy debate about the value vs. the cost of covert operations, and the history of such, I’ll just leave it with I disagree, and hope you’ll agree to disagree on whether we should or should not have done what we did. Besides, in the end, that’s totally moot. We did it, and we will probably do it again. No one cares whether I support it or not. Such is life.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Allan,

Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree as to what happened in Afghanistan. As to Brzezinski, my impression is he’s doing what lots of people do. ie. after the fact he changes details to cast himself in a better light.

From what little I know, the Carter admin was not particularly supportive of the CIA, it’s covert operations, nor funding to the rebels in Afghanistan. But whether they were supportive or not, is kinda moot. The USA did fund the war and that’s fairly easy to document.

My only real point of disagreement then is whether we should have done what we did. I get the sense you supported what we did, and that you feel we probably should have done more. Sorry, but I disagree. However, since I’m not inclined to get into the lengthy debate about the value vs. the cost of covert operations, and the history of such, I’ll just leave it with I disagree, and hope you’ll agree to disagree on whether we should or should not have done what we did. Besides, in the end, that’s totally moot. We did it, and we will probably do it again. No one cares whether I support it or not. Such is life.

XBoxBoy

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Following is pulled directly from stockstradr's posting: 

What is the Great Dark Secret of history that Americans are too ignorant to know or too proud to discuss?

Read this excerpt from an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser:

Q [Interviewer]: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B[Zbigniew Brzezinski]: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

OK, so what is the Great Dark Secret? THE FACTS 1) Carter, Brzezinski, and others in the administration decided back in July '79 to fund covert CIA involvement in the Afghanistan civil war with the goal to give Russia a Vietnam-like failed war. 2) That conspiracy became wildly "successful" and many historians later concluded it not only gave Russia a Vietnam-like failed war (on a greater scale), but was a pivotal element in the collapse of the entire Soviet Union. 3) Afghanistan was the real victim and "paid" the price to the tune of over ONE MILLION Afghan lives and their country was reduced to rubble, all so that America could give Russia its Vietnam on Afghani soil. 4) America sent countless CIA operatives into Afghanistan during the war, to train Afghanis how to be terrorists against Russians in Afghanistan. America sent millions of dollars in weapons into Afghanistan. What downed the 333 Russian helicopters lost during that war? 

This passage asserts not only did the Carter Administration fund and support a secret war inside Afghanistan, but that the Soviets invaded because of it's existence.  However, Brzezinski is unclear as to whether or not the operations plan existed prior to the Russian invasion.  It would certainly appear to be the case, if the Soviet response was driven by their desire to foil said secret war.

So, which is it?  The timing would seem to indicate we became involved following, as would the phrasing of Brzezinski's letter to President Carter, but the way he describes events contradicts that timing, and make it appear that the Soviets became aware of this secret war and then invaded following.

History tells a different story, especially as regards the Carter Administration's handling of special warfare missions and covert operations.  I mentioned the Desert One debacle because it underscores the point that Carter hamstrung not only our conventional military capabilities, but also gutted our SOF and covert programs as well.  It strains credulity to see his hand behind the anti-Soviet effort in Afghanistan.  

     

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Following is pulled directly from stockstradr's posting: 

What is the Great Dark Secret of history that Americans are too ignorant to know or too proud to discuss?

Read this excerpt from an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser:

Q [Interviewer]: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B[Zbigniew Brzezinski]: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

OK, so what is the Great Dark Secret? THE FACTS 1) Carter, Brzezinski, and others in the administration decided back in July '79 to fund covert CIA involvement in the Afghanistan civil war with the goal to give Russia a Vietnam-like failed war. 2) That conspiracy became wildly "successful" and many historians later concluded it not only gave Russia a Vietnam-like failed war (on a greater scale), but was a pivotal element in the collapse of the entire Soviet Union. 3) Afghanistan was the real victim and "paid" the price to the tune of over ONE MILLION Afghan lives and their country was reduced to rubble, all so that America could give Russia its Vietnam on Afghani soil. 4) America sent countless CIA operatives into Afghanistan during the war, to train Afghanis how to be terrorists against Russians in Afghanistan. America sent millions of dollars in weapons into Afghanistan. What downed the 333 Russian helicopters lost during that war? 

This passage asserts not only did the Carter Administration fund and support a secret war inside Afghanistan, but that the Soviets invaded because of it's existence.  However, Brzezinski is unclear as to whether or not the operations plan existed prior to the Russian invasion.  It would certainly appear to be the case, if the Soviet response was driven by their desire to foil said secret war.

So, which is it?  The timing would seem to indicate we became involved following, as would the phrasing of Brzezinski's letter to President Carter, but the way he describes events contradicts that timing, and make it appear that the Soviets became aware of this secret war and then invaded following.

History tells a different story, especially as regards the Carter Administration's handling of special warfare missions and covert operations.  I mentioned the Desert One debacle because it underscores the point that Carter hamstrung not only our conventional military capabilities, but also gutted our SOF and covert programs as well.  It strains credulity to see his hand behind the anti-Soviet effort in Afghanistan.  

     

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Following is pulled directly from stockstradr's posting: 

What is the Great Dark Secret of history that Americans are too ignorant to know or too proud to discuss?

Read this excerpt from an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser:

Q [Interviewer]: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B[Zbigniew Brzezinski]: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

OK, so what is the Great Dark Secret? THE FACTS 1) Carter, Brzezinski, and others in the administration decided back in July '79 to fund covert CIA involvement in the Afghanistan civil war with the goal to give Russia a Vietnam-like failed war. 2) That conspiracy became wildly "successful" and many historians later concluded it not only gave Russia a Vietnam-like failed war (on a greater scale), but was a pivotal element in the collapse of the entire Soviet Union. 3) Afghanistan was the real victim and "paid" the price to the tune of over ONE MILLION Afghan lives and their country was reduced to rubble, all so that America could give Russia its Vietnam on Afghani soil. 4) America sent countless CIA operatives into Afghanistan during the war, to train Afghanis how to be terrorists against Russians in Afghanistan. America sent millions of dollars in weapons into Afghanistan. What downed the 333 Russian helicopters lost during that war? 

This passage asserts not only did the Carter Administration fund and support a secret war inside Afghanistan, but that the Soviets invaded because of it's existence.  However, Brzezinski is unclear as to whether or not the operations plan existed prior to the Russian invasion.  It would certainly appear to be the case, if the Soviet response was driven by their desire to foil said secret war.

So, which is it?  The timing would seem to indicate we became involved following, as would the phrasing of Brzezinski's letter to President Carter, but the way he describes events contradicts that timing, and make it appear that the Soviets became aware of this secret war and then invaded following.

History tells a different story, especially as regards the Carter Administration's handling of special warfare missions and covert operations.  I mentioned the Desert One debacle because it underscores the point that Carter hamstrung not only our conventional military capabilities, but also gutted our SOF and covert programs as well.  It strains credulity to see his hand behind the anti-Soviet effort in Afghanistan.  

     

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Following is pulled directly from stockstradr's posting: 

What is the Great Dark Secret of history that Americans are too ignorant to know or too proud to discuss?

Read this excerpt from an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser:

Q [Interviewer]: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B[Zbigniew Brzezinski]: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

OK, so what is the Great Dark Secret? THE FACTS 1) Carter, Brzezinski, and others in the administration decided back in July '79 to fund covert CIA involvement in the Afghanistan civil war with the goal to give Russia a Vietnam-like failed war. 2) That conspiracy became wildly "successful" and many historians later concluded it not only gave Russia a Vietnam-like failed war (on a greater scale), but was a pivotal element in the collapse of the entire Soviet Union. 3) Afghanistan was the real victim and "paid" the price to the tune of over ONE MILLION Afghan lives and their country was reduced to rubble, all so that America could give Russia its Vietnam on Afghani soil. 4) America sent countless CIA operatives into Afghanistan during the war, to train Afghanis how to be terrorists against Russians in Afghanistan. America sent millions of dollars in weapons into Afghanistan. What downed the 333 Russian helicopters lost during that war? 

This passage asserts not only did the Carter Administration fund and support a secret war inside Afghanistan, but that the Soviets invaded because of it's existence.  However, Brzezinski is unclear as to whether or not the operations plan existed prior to the Russian invasion.  It would certainly appear to be the case, if the Soviet response was driven by their desire to foil said secret war.

So, which is it?  The timing would seem to indicate we became involved following, as would the phrasing of Brzezinski's letter to President Carter, but the way he describes events contradicts that timing, and make it appear that the Soviets became aware of this secret war and then invaded following.

History tells a different story, especially as regards the Carter Administration's handling of special warfare missions and covert operations.  I mentioned the Desert One debacle because it underscores the point that Carter hamstrung not only our conventional military capabilities, but also gutted our SOF and covert programs as well.  It strains credulity to see his hand behind the anti-Soviet effort in Afghanistan.  

     

[Allan from Fallbrook]

And if my post had a mocking tone, I apologize. I clearly let my irritation get the better of me, and that is wrong.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

And if my post had a mocking tone, I apologize. I clearly let my irritation get the better of me, and that is wrong.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

And if my post had a mocking tone, I apologize. I clearly let my irritation get the better of me, and that is wrong.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

And if my post had a mocking tone, I apologize. I clearly let my irritation get the better of me, and that is wrong.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

XBoxBoy: Fair enough. Let me clarify what I meant. I do NOT believe that Carter and the CIA had a master plan to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan. I DO believe that once the Russians were there, we did our utmost to bleed them white. Having worked with SOF guys who supplied the Muj fighters with Stinger missiles (and gave them the know-how to use them) I know that we were heavily involved in the area and the effort.

Do I think we bailed out after the Russians did? Sadly, yes I do.

I don’t give Carter any credit, because he deserves none. I think Charlie Wilson is a stud, as I believe many of the individual field officers (CIA) and SOF guys were as well. I think the situation was driven by the expedient issues at the time and, once the objective was achieved, we took off.

I get irritated whenever I hear the mantra start about an “unwarranted war”, and the presumption of some perfidious neocon plot to rule the world. In that part of the world, at that time, it was basically a continuation of “The Great Game” started by the British 150 years earlier. We were seeking to head off Soviet influence, maintain an acceptable balance of power, and protect the free flow of oil.

I think Carter did us irreparable harm in both that part of the world, and in dealing with the Soviet threat, specifically the various wars by proxy that the Russians were waging at the time.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

XBoxBoy: Fair enough. Let me clarify what I meant. I do NOT believe that Carter and the CIA had a master plan to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan. I DO believe that once the Russians were there, we did our utmost to bleed them white. Having worked with SOF guys who supplied the Muj fighters with Stinger missiles (and gave them the know-how to use them) I know that we were heavily involved in the area and the effort.

Do I think we bailed out after the Russians did? Sadly, yes I do.

I don’t give Carter any credit, because he deserves none. I think Charlie Wilson is a stud, as I believe many of the individual field officers (CIA) and SOF guys were as well. I think the situation was driven by the expedient issues at the time and, once the objective was achieved, we took off.

I get irritated whenever I hear the mantra start about an “unwarranted war”, and the presumption of some perfidious neocon plot to rule the world. In that part of the world, at that time, it was basically a continuation of “The Great Game” started by the British 150 years earlier. We were seeking to head off Soviet influence, maintain an acceptable balance of power, and protect the free flow of oil.

I think Carter did us irreparable harm in both that part of the world, and in dealing with the Soviet threat, specifically the various wars by proxy that the Russians were waging at the time.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

XBoxBoy: Fair enough. Let me clarify what I meant. I do NOT believe that Carter and the CIA had a master plan to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan. I DO believe that once the Russians were there, we did our utmost to bleed them white. Having worked with SOF guys who supplied the Muj fighters with Stinger missiles (and gave them the know-how to use them) I know that we were heavily involved in the area and the effort.

Do I think we bailed out after the Russians did? Sadly, yes I do.

I don’t give Carter any credit, because he deserves none. I think Charlie Wilson is a stud, as I believe many of the individual field officers (CIA) and SOF guys were as well. I think the situation was driven by the expedient issues at the time and, once the objective was achieved, we took off.

I get irritated whenever I hear the mantra start about an “unwarranted war”, and the presumption of some perfidious neocon plot to rule the world. In that part of the world, at that time, it was basically a continuation of “The Great Game” started by the British 150 years earlier. We were seeking to head off Soviet influence, maintain an acceptable balance of power, and protect the free flow of oil.

I think Carter did us irreparable harm in both that part of the world, and in dealing with the Soviet threat, specifically the various wars by proxy that the Russians were waging at the time.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

XBoxBoy: Fair enough. Let me clarify what I meant. I do NOT believe that Carter and the CIA had a master plan to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan. I DO believe that once the Russians were there, we did our utmost to bleed them white. Having worked with SOF guys who supplied the Muj fighters with Stinger missiles (and gave them the know-how to use them) I know that we were heavily involved in the area and the effort.

Do I think we bailed out after the Russians did? Sadly, yes I do.

I don’t give Carter any credit, because he deserves none. I think Charlie Wilson is a stud, as I believe many of the individual field officers (CIA) and SOF guys were as well. I think the situation was driven by the expedient issues at the time and, once the objective was achieved, we took off.

I get irritated whenever I hear the mantra start about an “unwarranted war”, and the presumption of some perfidious neocon plot to rule the world. In that part of the world, at that time, it was basically a continuation of “The Great Game” started by the British 150 years earlier. We were seeking to head off Soviet influence, maintain an acceptable balance of power, and protect the free flow of oil.

I think Carter did us irreparable harm in both that part of the world, and in dealing with the Soviet threat, specifically the various wars by proxy that the Russians were waging at the time.

[XBoxBoy]

Allan,

You mock stockstradr’s post claiming: “What is really scary is if anyone believes that nonsense.”

Then you only go on to point out that the Soviets went into Afghanistan before Carter and the CIA started funding rebels. Personally, I took stockstradr’s post to imply that after the Soviets invaded, the CIA was able to pull the Soviets farther into a quagmire by funding the Afghan rebels, not that the CIA and Carter were the reason the Soviets went into Afghanistan in the first place.

But, my real question is, given that you have called stockstradr’s post nonsense, are you in dispute with his other points? Particularly:

The CIA war in Afghanistan was able to cause the Soviets significant Vietnam like problems. (Loss of lives, loss of prestige, wasted money, etc.)

The CIA was responsible for arming and training many Jihadist that later turned on the USA. (Including most notably Osama Bin-Laden)

That after the war against the Soviets, the USA did little if anything to help the Afghans rebuild their country?

And then finally, is stockstradr’s suggestion that the USA should have done more to help rebuild Afghanistan, part of the nonsense you are objecting to? (Particularly in light of what has happened in recent years with 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA)

If you are indeed calling stockstradr’s post nonsense, can you explain why you feel these points that he brought up are nonsense? I’m no expert on Afghanistan but I am under the impression that the above points are mostly on target.

Perhaps your objection is to Carter, since you seem kinda negative about him. (Which is okay by me) In that case, I doubly recommend reading Charlie Wilson’s War which overwhelmingly points out that the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan had very little support from Carter, but was overwhelmingly driven by one congressman, Charlie Wilson.

And BTW, I’m can’t really speak for stockstradr, but I don’t think his point is that Carter and the CIA had a some master plan as you suggest. I think his point was that the USA and the CIA were a lot more involved in turning it into and then leaving Afghanistan in the mess that is today than most American understand. Not that the USA started this mess. And, so finally I ask the question which is do you dispute the USA’s role here? If so, can you explain?

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Allan,

You mock stockstradr’s post claiming: “What is really scary is if anyone believes that nonsense.”

Then you only go on to point out that the Soviets went into Afghanistan before Carter and the CIA started funding rebels. Personally, I took stockstradr’s post to imply that after the Soviets invaded, the CIA was able to pull the Soviets farther into a quagmire by funding the Afghan rebels, not that the CIA and Carter were the reason the Soviets went into Afghanistan in the first place.

But, my real question is, given that you have called stockstradr’s post nonsense, are you in dispute with his other points? Particularly:

The CIA war in Afghanistan was able to cause the Soviets significant Vietnam like problems. (Loss of lives, loss of prestige, wasted money, etc.)

The CIA was responsible for arming and training many Jihadist that later turned on the USA. (Including most notably Osama Bin-Laden)

That after the war against the Soviets, the USA did little if anything to help the Afghans rebuild their country?

And then finally, is stockstradr’s suggestion that the USA should have done more to help rebuild Afghanistan, part of the nonsense you are objecting to? (Particularly in light of what has happened in recent years with 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA)

If you are indeed calling stockstradr’s post nonsense, can you explain why you feel these points that he brought up are nonsense? I’m no expert on Afghanistan but I am under the impression that the above points are mostly on target.

Perhaps your objection is to Carter, since you seem kinda negative about him. (Which is okay by me) In that case, I doubly recommend reading Charlie Wilson’s War which overwhelmingly points out that the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan had very little support from Carter, but was overwhelmingly driven by one congressman, Charlie Wilson.

And BTW, I’m can’t really speak for stockstradr, but I don’t think his point is that Carter and the CIA had a some master plan as you suggest. I think his point was that the USA and the CIA were a lot more involved in turning it into and then leaving Afghanistan in the mess that is today than most American understand. Not that the USA started this mess. And, so finally I ask the question which is do you dispute the USA’s role here? If so, can you explain?

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Allan,

You mock stockstradr’s post claiming: “What is really scary is if anyone believes that nonsense.”

Then you only go on to point out that the Soviets went into Afghanistan before Carter and the CIA started funding rebels. Personally, I took stockstradr’s post to imply that after the Soviets invaded, the CIA was able to pull the Soviets farther into a quagmire by funding the Afghan rebels, not that the CIA and Carter were the reason the Soviets went into Afghanistan in the first place.

But, my real question is, given that you have called stockstradr’s post nonsense, are you in dispute with his other points? Particularly:

The CIA war in Afghanistan was able to cause the Soviets significant Vietnam like problems. (Loss of lives, loss of prestige, wasted money, etc.)

The CIA was responsible for arming and training many Jihadist that later turned on the USA. (Including most notably Osama Bin-Laden)

That after the war against the Soviets, the USA did little if anything to help the Afghans rebuild their country?

And then finally, is stockstradr’s suggestion that the USA should have done more to help rebuild Afghanistan, part of the nonsense you are objecting to? (Particularly in light of what has happened in recent years with 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA)

If you are indeed calling stockstradr’s post nonsense, can you explain why you feel these points that he brought up are nonsense? I’m no expert on Afghanistan but I am under the impression that the above points are mostly on target.

Perhaps your objection is to Carter, since you seem kinda negative about him. (Which is okay by me) In that case, I doubly recommend reading Charlie Wilson’s War which overwhelmingly points out that the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan had very little support from Carter, but was overwhelmingly driven by one congressman, Charlie Wilson.

And BTW, I’m can’t really speak for stockstradr, but I don’t think his point is that Carter and the CIA had a some master plan as you suggest. I think his point was that the USA and the CIA were a lot more involved in turning it into and then leaving Afghanistan in the mess that is today than most American understand. Not that the USA started this mess. And, so finally I ask the question which is do you dispute the USA’s role here? If so, can you explain?

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Allan,

You mock stockstradr’s post claiming: “What is really scary is if anyone believes that nonsense.”

Then you only go on to point out that the Soviets went into Afghanistan before Carter and the CIA started funding rebels. Personally, I took stockstradr’s post to imply that after the Soviets invaded, the CIA was able to pull the Soviets farther into a quagmire by funding the Afghan rebels, not that the CIA and Carter were the reason the Soviets went into Afghanistan in the first place.

But, my real question is, given that you have called stockstradr’s post nonsense, are you in dispute with his other points? Particularly:

The CIA war in Afghanistan was able to cause the Soviets significant Vietnam like problems. (Loss of lives, loss of prestige, wasted money, etc.)

The CIA was responsible for arming and training many Jihadist that later turned on the USA. (Including most notably Osama Bin-Laden)

That after the war against the Soviets, the USA did little if anything to help the Afghans rebuild their country?

And then finally, is stockstradr’s suggestion that the USA should have done more to help rebuild Afghanistan, part of the nonsense you are objecting to? (Particularly in light of what has happened in recent years with 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA)

If you are indeed calling stockstradr’s post nonsense, can you explain why you feel these points that he brought up are nonsense? I’m no expert on Afghanistan but I am under the impression that the above points are mostly on target.

Perhaps your objection is to Carter, since you seem kinda negative about him. (Which is okay by me) In that case, I doubly recommend reading Charlie Wilson’s War which overwhelmingly points out that the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan had very little support from Carter, but was overwhelmingly driven by one congressman, Charlie Wilson.

And BTW, I’m can’t really speak for stockstradr, but I don’t think his point is that Carter and the CIA had a some master plan as you suggest. I think his point was that the USA and the CIA were a lot more involved in turning it into and then leaving Afghanistan in the mess that is today than most American understand. Not that the USA started this mess. And, so finally I ask the question which is do you dispute the USA’s role here? If so, can you explain?

XBoxBoy

[Allan from Fallbrook]

What is really scary is if anyone believes that nonsense.

Carter and the CIA intentionally funded an operation to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan, and solely for the purpose of creating a “Vietnam-like” war for the Russians? Yow.

And the Soviet desire for a warm water port, along with their stated intent of suppressing the growing Islamic influence within their borders had nothing to do with it?

Soviet contingency plans for the invasion of Afghanistan had been on the books for over ten years, and actually spanned further than that when one considers the Soviet concerns over potential Islamic uprisings in their Central Asian provinces. The war in Chechnya is an excellent example of this.

The Carter Administration was exemplified by the Desert One debacle in the deserts of Iran. Carter was completely buffaloed by the Russians and the invasion of Afghanistan caught the administration completely by surprise. The notion that Carter and the CIA were behind some sort of master plan like the one articulated above is laughable, and totally at odds with history.

The book “The Sword and the Shield” details KGB operations at length, and is written by a ranking KGB officer with over 30 years experience. Read the section on the Afghan invasion and then juxtapose it with the quaint little tale you’ve spun.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

What is really scary is if anyone believes that nonsense.

Carter and the CIA intentionally funded an operation to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan, and solely for the purpose of creating a “Vietnam-like” war for the Russians? Yow.

And the Soviet desire for a warm water port, along with their stated intent of suppressing the growing Islamic influence within their borders had nothing to do with it?

Soviet contingency plans for the invasion of Afghanistan had been on the books for over ten years, and actually spanned further than that when one considers the Soviet concerns over potential Islamic uprisings in their Central Asian provinces. The war in Chechnya is an excellent example of this.

The Carter Administration was exemplified by the Desert One debacle in the deserts of Iran. Carter was completely buffaloed by the Russians and the invasion of Afghanistan caught the administration completely by surprise. The notion that Carter and the CIA were behind some sort of master plan like the one articulated above is laughable, and totally at odds with history.

The book “The Sword and the Shield” details KGB operations at length, and is written by a ranking KGB officer with over 30 years experience. Read the section on the Afghan invasion and then juxtapose it with the quaint little tale you’ve spun.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

What is really scary is if anyone believes that nonsense.

Carter and the CIA intentionally funded an operation to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan, and solely for the purpose of creating a “Vietnam-like” war for the Russians? Yow.

And the Soviet desire for a warm water port, along with their stated intent of suppressing the growing Islamic influence within their borders had nothing to do with it?

Soviet contingency plans for the invasion of Afghanistan had been on the books for over ten years, and actually spanned further than that when one considers the Soviet concerns over potential Islamic uprisings in their Central Asian provinces. The war in Chechnya is an excellent example of this.

The Carter Administration was exemplified by the Desert One debacle in the deserts of Iran. Carter was completely buffaloed by the Russians and the invasion of Afghanistan caught the administration completely by surprise. The notion that Carter and the CIA were behind some sort of master plan like the one articulated above is laughable, and totally at odds with history.

The book “The Sword and the Shield” details KGB operations at length, and is written by a ranking KGB officer with over 30 years experience. Read the section on the Afghan invasion and then juxtapose it with the quaint little tale you’ve spun.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

What is really scary is if anyone believes that nonsense.

Carter and the CIA intentionally funded an operation to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan, and solely for the purpose of creating a “Vietnam-like” war for the Russians? Yow.

And the Soviet desire for a warm water port, along with their stated intent of suppressing the growing Islamic influence within their borders had nothing to do with it?

Soviet contingency plans for the invasion of Afghanistan had been on the books for over ten years, and actually spanned further than that when one considers the Soviet concerns over potential Islamic uprisings in their Central Asian provinces. The war in Chechnya is an excellent example of this.

The Carter Administration was exemplified by the Desert One debacle in the deserts of Iran. Carter was completely buffaloed by the Russians and the invasion of Afghanistan caught the administration completely by surprise. The notion that Carter and the CIA were behind some sort of master plan like the one articulated above is laughable, and totally at odds with history.

The book “The Sword and the Shield” details KGB operations at length, and is written by a ranking KGB officer with over 30 years experience. Read the section on the Afghan invasion and then juxtapose it with the quaint little tale you’ve spun.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

“Unwarranted attack against Iraq”. Hmmm. Curious. Would you explain your reasoning on this one?

[Arraya]

“Unwarranted attack against Iraq”. Hmmm. Curious. Would you explain your reasoning on this one?

Yes, it was warrented we needed the oil. Geez, everybody knows that. Unfortunately we are still about 500K bbl per day under pre-war production levels so it do not help with the price that much.

Check out the speech from cheney when he was chairman of Halliburten. I’m sure oil was not on their mind at all when planning to go to Iraq. Not so much oil for profits but oil to maintain our way of life. We can’t seem to get much more the 85 million barrels per day out of the ground and the number will soon be decreasing. Some people think that is a monumental problem and Bush and Cheney are some of those people.

http://www.peakoil.net/Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf

“Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.

By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we will need n additional 50 million barrels per day.”

Cognitive dissonance is our national condition….

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: No argument from me on this one. However, “unwarranted attack” is generally code for “neocon” in left wing parlance. Your use of the phrase cognitive dissonance is especially appropriate here, in that the Clinton Administration rattled the saber quite loudly when it came to Iraq and Hussein, but always stopped short of outright war.

Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the various and sundry speeches of Albright, Berger and Co. about the need for regime change, the heavy bombings (Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq; a fact never commented on by most), etc.

Instead, the Iraq War is parlayed into some Bush family plot to avenge Daddy’s honor.

The US has made it a point of policy to prop up whatever governments in the region keep the oil spigot open. This included the Shah of Iran before he was deposed. It included Saddam before we had to take him off of his high chair. And it includes the Saudis, which will probably be the next group to go.

It is not a development that has emerged during the last two terms of this administration, however. The US clearly understood the need for oil many years ago, and that in order to keep the machinery running, we would need a lot of it. Our policy in the region reflects that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

This photo was taken during the waning days of WWII (February 1945). It shows FDR and ibn Saud (later King Abdul Aziz) meeting aboard a US Navy destroyer (USS Quincy) on the Great Bitter Lake. [img_assist|nid=6027|title=FDR and ibn Saud|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=466]

[Allan from Fallbrook]

This photo was taken during the waning days of WWII (February 1945). It shows FDR and ibn Saud (later King Abdul Aziz) meeting aboard a US Navy destroyer (USS Quincy) on the Great Bitter Lake. [img_assist|nid=6027|title=FDR and ibn Saud|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=466]

[Allan from Fallbrook]

This photo was taken during the waning days of WWII (February 1945). It shows FDR and ibn Saud (later King Abdul Aziz) meeting aboard a US Navy destroyer (USS Quincy) on the Great Bitter Lake. [img_assist|nid=6027|title=FDR and ibn Saud|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=466]

[Allan from Fallbrook]

This photo was taken during the waning days of WWII (February 1945). It shows FDR and ibn Saud (later King Abdul Aziz) meeting aboard a US Navy destroyer (USS Quincy) on the Great Bitter Lake. [img_assist|nid=6027|title=FDR and ibn Saud|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=466]

[Allan from Fallbrook]

This photo was taken during the waning days of WWII (February 1945). It shows FDR and ibn Saud (later King Abdul Aziz) meeting aboard a US Navy destroyer (USS Quincy) on the Great Bitter Lake. [img_assist|nid=6027|title=FDR and ibn Saud|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=466]

[NotCranky]

Allan,

I have theory that Israel was created just much as a western show of dominance in the oil rich, middle east and to have an unfaltering, allied, standing army there as well, which was also perfect divide and conquer strategy.

I never understood the part about Israel shooting at English ships just shortly after the country was formed.
Can you help?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Israel was shooting at everybody at that point (1947). Most people don’t realize it, but the Israelis had their own terrorist organizations during that period; groups like Haganah (“The Revionists”), Irgun (militant offshoot of Haganah) and the Stern Gang. Menachem Begin was a member, and is considered to be the brains behind the bombing of the King David Hotel, which killed a large number of British soldiers and diplomats.

The Stern Gang’s central tenet was the expulsion of the British authorities (the Palestine Government), in order to make way for the formation of a Jewish state. They were responsible for the assassination of Lord Moyne, as well as countless attacks on Arabs in the occupied territories.

The Israelis have a tendency to gloss over this part of their history (for obvious reasons).

My personal feeling is that the British felt some measure of guilt over what happened to European Jews during the Holocaust and, in concert with the other Western powers (including the US) implemented the Balfour Doctrine, and then got the hell out of there.

[nostradamus]

It’s funny, I have only had guns pointed at me in two places: once in Guatemala I was mugged at gunpoint by police (stay out of Zone 1 in Guatemala City). The second time was in Israel. An Israeli Defense Forces guy with no badge or identifying uniform accosted me at the airport in Tel Aviv and stuck a gun in my face. Some Israelis say “you must have been doing something wrong” but I can assure that I wasn’t. On another occasion, in Jerusalem, an IDF guy with an Uzi (which BTW was invented by Israelis who IMO make the most effective weapons) made very threatening gestures. I don’t think I was ever so scared of other people in my life as when I was accosted by these armed and seemingly madly militant, control-freak Israelis. On the same trip I went to Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon, and felt comfortable, safe, and even welcomed by the locals (Muslims, Arabs, Christians) who all knew I was American.

Before I went there I had a tendency to favor the Israelis, seeing them as victims of terror in this ongoing fat’wa. Now I’m wondering how much of it is perpetuated by Israeli abuse of innocent people (like me).

Edit: BTW people in Israel are armed like you wouldn’t believe. Grenade launchers, Desert Eagles, P90s, and so on. I couldn’t go to a cafe, a mall, a wedding, or anywhere without seeing dozens of people openly packing major heat. I’m not for or against gun laws, but their gear doesn’t seem to diminish the violence all that much.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: I spent a lot of time (3+ yrs) in Central America, specifically Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. An interesting connection point exists between Guatemala and Israel, in that Guatemala is crawling with ex-Mossad types and ex-IDF.

The Guatemalan Army uses Galil rifles (your aforementioned excellent Israeli weapon), and internal security is provided by ex-Mossad, including a real “Big Brother” system at the airport in Guat City. As bad as Salvador was during the Wild West days of the ’80s, Guatemala was even worse (we called it “The Land of Very Bad Things”). And the Israelis were right in the thick of it. The handful of ex-Mossad guys I knew were really twitchy (think Doberman) and armed to the frickin’ teeth.

Of course, the nut job of all nut jobs was General Rios Montt in Guatemala. You want some interesting bathroom reading, check into that guy. Wow.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: I spent a lot of time (3+ yrs) in Central America, specifically Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. An interesting connection point exists between Guatemala and Israel, in that Guatemala is crawling with ex-Mossad types and ex-IDF.

The Guatemalan Army uses Galil rifles (your aforementioned excellent Israeli weapon), and internal security is provided by ex-Mossad, including a real “Big Brother” system at the airport in Guat City. As bad as Salvador was during the Wild West days of the ’80s, Guatemala was even worse (we called it “The Land of Very Bad Things”). And the Israelis were right in the thick of it. The handful of ex-Mossad guys I knew were really twitchy (think Doberman) and armed to the frickin’ teeth.

Of course, the nut job of all nut jobs was General Rios Montt in Guatemala. You want some interesting bathroom reading, check into that guy. Wow.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: I spent a lot of time (3+ yrs) in Central America, specifically Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. An interesting connection point exists between Guatemala and Israel, in that Guatemala is crawling with ex-Mossad types and ex-IDF.

The Guatemalan Army uses Galil rifles (your aforementioned excellent Israeli weapon), and internal security is provided by ex-Mossad, including a real “Big Brother” system at the airport in Guat City. As bad as Salvador was during the Wild West days of the ’80s, Guatemala was even worse (we called it “The Land of Very Bad Things”). And the Israelis were right in the thick of it. The handful of ex-Mossad guys I knew were really twitchy (think Doberman) and armed to the frickin’ teeth.

Of course, the nut job of all nut jobs was General Rios Montt in Guatemala. You want some interesting bathroom reading, check into that guy. Wow.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: I spent a lot of time (3+ yrs) in Central America, specifically Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. An interesting connection point exists between Guatemala and Israel, in that Guatemala is crawling with ex-Mossad types and ex-IDF.

The Guatemalan Army uses Galil rifles (your aforementioned excellent Israeli weapon), and internal security is provided by ex-Mossad, including a real “Big Brother” system at the airport in Guat City. As bad as Salvador was during the Wild West days of the ’80s, Guatemala was even worse (we called it “The Land of Very Bad Things”). And the Israelis were right in the thick of it. The handful of ex-Mossad guys I knew were really twitchy (think Doberman) and armed to the frickin’ teeth.

Of course, the nut job of all nut jobs was General Rios Montt in Guatemala. You want some interesting bathroom reading, check into that guy. Wow.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: I spent a lot of time (3+ yrs) in Central America, specifically Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. An interesting connection point exists between Guatemala and Israel, in that Guatemala is crawling with ex-Mossad types and ex-IDF.

The Guatemalan Army uses Galil rifles (your aforementioned excellent Israeli weapon), and internal security is provided by ex-Mossad, including a real “Big Brother” system at the airport in Guat City. As bad as Salvador was during the Wild West days of the ’80s, Guatemala was even worse (we called it “The Land of Very Bad Things”). And the Israelis were right in the thick of it. The handful of ex-Mossad guys I knew were really twitchy (think Doberman) and armed to the frickin’ teeth.

Of course, the nut job of all nut jobs was General Rios Montt in Guatemala. You want some interesting bathroom reading, check into that guy. Wow.

[nostradamus]

It’s funny, I have only had guns pointed at me in two places: once in Guatemala I was mugged at gunpoint by police (stay out of Zone 1 in Guatemala City). The second time was in Israel. An Israeli Defense Forces guy with no badge or identifying uniform accosted me at the airport in Tel Aviv and stuck a gun in my face. Some Israelis say “you must have been doing something wrong” but I can assure that I wasn’t. On another occasion, in Jerusalem, an IDF guy with an Uzi (which BTW was invented by Israelis who IMO make the most effective weapons) made very threatening gestures. I don’t think I was ever so scared of other people in my life as when I was accosted by these armed and seemingly madly militant, control-freak Israelis. On the same trip I went to Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon, and felt comfortable, safe, and even welcomed by the locals (Muslims, Arabs, Christians) who all knew I was American.

Before I went there I had a tendency to favor the Israelis, seeing them as victims of terror in this ongoing fat’wa. Now I’m wondering how much of it is perpetuated by Israeli abuse of innocent people (like me).

Edit: BTW people in Israel are armed like you wouldn’t believe. Grenade launchers, Desert Eagles, P90s, and so on. I couldn’t go to a cafe, a mall, a wedding, or anywhere without seeing dozens of people openly packing major heat. I’m not for or against gun laws, but their gear doesn’t seem to diminish the violence all that much.

[nostradamus]

It’s funny, I have only had guns pointed at me in two places: once in Guatemala I was mugged at gunpoint by police (stay out of Zone 1 in Guatemala City). The second time was in Israel. An Israeli Defense Forces guy with no badge or identifying uniform accosted me at the airport in Tel Aviv and stuck a gun in my face. Some Israelis say “you must have been doing something wrong” but I can assure that I wasn’t. On another occasion, in Jerusalem, an IDF guy with an Uzi (which BTW was invented by Israelis who IMO make the most effective weapons) made very threatening gestures. I don’t think I was ever so scared of other people in my life as when I was accosted by these armed and seemingly madly militant, control-freak Israelis. On the same trip I went to Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon, and felt comfortable, safe, and even welcomed by the locals (Muslims, Arabs, Christians) who all knew I was American.

Before I went there I had a tendency to favor the Israelis, seeing them as victims of terror in this ongoing fat’wa. Now I’m wondering how much of it is perpetuated by Israeli abuse of innocent people (like me).

Edit: BTW people in Israel are armed like you wouldn’t believe. Grenade launchers, Desert Eagles, P90s, and so on. I couldn’t go to a cafe, a mall, a wedding, or anywhere without seeing dozens of people openly packing major heat. I’m not for or against gun laws, but their gear doesn’t seem to diminish the violence all that much.

[nostradamus]

It’s funny, I have only had guns pointed at me in two places: once in Guatemala I was mugged at gunpoint by police (stay out of Zone 1 in Guatemala City). The second time was in Israel. An Israeli Defense Forces guy with no badge or identifying uniform accosted me at the airport in Tel Aviv and stuck a gun in my face. Some Israelis say “you must have been doing something wrong” but I can assure that I wasn’t. On another occasion, in Jerusalem, an IDF guy with an Uzi (which BTW was invented by Israelis who IMO make the most effective weapons) made very threatening gestures. I don’t think I was ever so scared of other people in my life as when I was accosted by these armed and seemingly madly militant, control-freak Israelis. On the same trip I went to Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon, and felt comfortable, safe, and even welcomed by the locals (Muslims, Arabs, Christians) who all knew I was American.

Before I went there I had a tendency to favor the Israelis, seeing them as victims of terror in this ongoing fat’wa. Now I’m wondering how much of it is perpetuated by Israeli abuse of innocent people (like me).

Edit: BTW people in Israel are armed like you wouldn’t believe. Grenade launchers, Desert Eagles, P90s, and so on. I couldn’t go to a cafe, a mall, a wedding, or anywhere without seeing dozens of people openly packing major heat. I’m not for or against gun laws, but their gear doesn’t seem to diminish the violence all that much.

[nostradamus]

It’s funny, I have only had guns pointed at me in two places: once in Guatemala I was mugged at gunpoint by police (stay out of Zone 1 in Guatemala City). The second time was in Israel. An Israeli Defense Forces guy with no badge or identifying uniform accosted me at the airport in Tel Aviv and stuck a gun in my face. Some Israelis say “you must have been doing something wrong” but I can assure that I wasn’t. On another occasion, in Jerusalem, an IDF guy with an Uzi (which BTW was invented by Israelis who IMO make the most effective weapons) made very threatening gestures. I don’t think I was ever so scared of other people in my life as when I was accosted by these armed and seemingly madly militant, control-freak Israelis. On the same trip I went to Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon, and felt comfortable, safe, and even welcomed by the locals (Muslims, Arabs, Christians) who all knew I was American.

Before I went there I had a tendency to favor the Israelis, seeing them as victims of terror in this ongoing fat’wa. Now I’m wondering how much of it is perpetuated by Israeli abuse of innocent people (like me).

Edit: BTW people in Israel are armed like you wouldn’t believe. Grenade launchers, Desert Eagles, P90s, and so on. I couldn’t go to a cafe, a mall, a wedding, or anywhere without seeing dozens of people openly packing major heat. I’m not for or against gun laws, but their gear doesn’t seem to diminish the violence all that much.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Israel was shooting at everybody at that point (1947). Most people don’t realize it, but the Israelis had their own terrorist organizations during that period; groups like Haganah (“The Revionists”), Irgun (militant offshoot of Haganah) and the Stern Gang. Menachem Begin was a member, and is considered to be the brains behind the bombing of the King David Hotel, which killed a large number of British soldiers and diplomats.

The Stern Gang’s central tenet was the expulsion of the British authorities (the Palestine Government), in order to make way for the formation of a Jewish state. They were responsible for the assassination of Lord Moyne, as well as countless attacks on Arabs in the occupied territories.

The Israelis have a tendency to gloss over this part of their history (for obvious reasons).

My personal feeling is that the British felt some measure of guilt over what happened to European Jews during the Holocaust and, in concert with the other Western powers (including the US) implemented the Balfour Doctrine, and then got the hell out of there.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Israel was shooting at everybody at that point (1947). Most people don’t realize it, but the Israelis had their own terrorist organizations during that period; groups like Haganah (“The Revionists”), Irgun (militant offshoot of Haganah) and the Stern Gang. Menachem Begin was a member, and is considered to be the brains behind the bombing of the King David Hotel, which killed a large number of British soldiers and diplomats.

The Stern Gang’s central tenet was the expulsion of the British authorities (the Palestine Government), in order to make way for the formation of a Jewish state. They were responsible for the assassination of Lord Moyne, as well as countless attacks on Arabs in the occupied territories.

The Israelis have a tendency to gloss over this part of their history (for obvious reasons).

My personal feeling is that the British felt some measure of guilt over what happened to European Jews during the Holocaust and, in concert with the other Western powers (including the US) implemented the Balfour Doctrine, and then got the hell out of there.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Israel was shooting at everybody at that point (1947). Most people don’t realize it, but the Israelis had their own terrorist organizations during that period; groups like Haganah (“The Revionists”), Irgun (militant offshoot of Haganah) and the Stern Gang. Menachem Begin was a member, and is considered to be the brains behind the bombing of the King David Hotel, which killed a large number of British soldiers and diplomats.

The Stern Gang’s central tenet was the expulsion of the British authorities (the Palestine Government), in order to make way for the formation of a Jewish state. They were responsible for the assassination of Lord Moyne, as well as countless attacks on Arabs in the occupied territories.

The Israelis have a tendency to gloss over this part of their history (for obvious reasons).

My personal feeling is that the British felt some measure of guilt over what happened to European Jews during the Holocaust and, in concert with the other Western powers (including the US) implemented the Balfour Doctrine, and then got the hell out of there.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Israel was shooting at everybody at that point (1947). Most people don’t realize it, but the Israelis had their own terrorist organizations during that period; groups like Haganah (“The Revionists”), Irgun (militant offshoot of Haganah) and the Stern Gang. Menachem Begin was a member, and is considered to be the brains behind the bombing of the King David Hotel, which killed a large number of British soldiers and diplomats.

The Stern Gang’s central tenet was the expulsion of the British authorities (the Palestine Government), in order to make way for the formation of a Jewish state. They were responsible for the assassination of Lord Moyne, as well as countless attacks on Arabs in the occupied territories.

The Israelis have a tendency to gloss over this part of their history (for obvious reasons).

My personal feeling is that the British felt some measure of guilt over what happened to European Jews during the Holocaust and, in concert with the other Western powers (including the US) implemented the Balfour Doctrine, and then got the hell out of there.

[NotCranky]

Allan,

I have theory that Israel was created just much as a western show of dominance in the oil rich, middle east and to have an unfaltering, allied, standing army there as well, which was also perfect divide and conquer strategy.

I never understood the part about Israel shooting at English ships just shortly after the country was formed.
Can you help?

[NotCranky]

Allan,

I have theory that Israel was created just much as a western show of dominance in the oil rich, middle east and to have an unfaltering, allied, standing army there as well, which was also perfect divide and conquer strategy.

I never understood the part about Israel shooting at English ships just shortly after the country was formed.
Can you help?

[NotCranky]

Allan,

I have theory that Israel was created just much as a western show of dominance in the oil rich, middle east and to have an unfaltering, allied, standing army there as well, which was also perfect divide and conquer strategy.

I never understood the part about Israel shooting at English ships just shortly after the country was formed.
Can you help?

[NotCranky]

Allan,

I have theory that Israel was created just much as a western show of dominance in the oil rich, middle east and to have an unfaltering, allied, standing army there as well, which was also perfect divide and conquer strategy.

I never understood the part about Israel shooting at English ships just shortly after the country was formed.
Can you help?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: No argument from me on this one. However, “unwarranted attack” is generally code for “neocon” in left wing parlance. Your use of the phrase cognitive dissonance is especially appropriate here, in that the Clinton Administration rattled the saber quite loudly when it came to Iraq and Hussein, but always stopped short of outright war.

Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the various and sundry speeches of Albright, Berger and Co. about the need for regime change, the heavy bombings (Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq; a fact never commented on by most), etc.

Instead, the Iraq War is parlayed into some Bush family plot to avenge Daddy’s honor.

The US has made it a point of policy to prop up whatever governments in the region keep the oil spigot open. This included the Shah of Iran before he was deposed. It included Saddam before we had to take him off of his high chair. And it includes the Saudis, which will probably be the next group to go.

It is not a development that has emerged during the last two terms of this administration, however. The US clearly understood the need for oil many years ago, and that in order to keep the machinery running, we would need a lot of it. Our policy in the region reflects that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: No argument from me on this one. However, “unwarranted attack” is generally code for “neocon” in left wing parlance. Your use of the phrase cognitive dissonance is especially appropriate here, in that the Clinton Administration rattled the saber quite loudly when it came to Iraq and Hussein, but always stopped short of outright war.

Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the various and sundry speeches of Albright, Berger and Co. about the need for regime change, the heavy bombings (Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq; a fact never commented on by most), etc.

Instead, the Iraq War is parlayed into some Bush family plot to avenge Daddy’s honor.

The US has made it a point of policy to prop up whatever governments in the region keep the oil spigot open. This included the Shah of Iran before he was deposed. It included Saddam before we had to take him off of his high chair. And it includes the Saudis, which will probably be the next group to go.

It is not a development that has emerged during the last two terms of this administration, however. The US clearly understood the need for oil many years ago, and that in order to keep the machinery running, we would need a lot of it. Our policy in the region reflects that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: No argument from me on this one. However, “unwarranted attack” is generally code for “neocon” in left wing parlance. Your use of the phrase cognitive dissonance is especially appropriate here, in that the Clinton Administration rattled the saber quite loudly when it came to Iraq and Hussein, but always stopped short of outright war.

Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the various and sundry speeches of Albright, Berger and Co. about the need for regime change, the heavy bombings (Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq; a fact never commented on by most), etc.

Instead, the Iraq War is parlayed into some Bush family plot to avenge Daddy’s honor.

The US has made it a point of policy to prop up whatever governments in the region keep the oil spigot open. This included the Shah of Iran before he was deposed. It included Saddam before we had to take him off of his high chair. And it includes the Saudis, which will probably be the next group to go.

It is not a development that has emerged during the last two terms of this administration, however. The US clearly understood the need for oil many years ago, and that in order to keep the machinery running, we would need a lot of it. Our policy in the region reflects that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: No argument from me on this one. However, “unwarranted attack” is generally code for “neocon” in left wing parlance. Your use of the phrase cognitive dissonance is especially appropriate here, in that the Clinton Administration rattled the saber quite loudly when it came to Iraq and Hussein, but always stopped short of outright war.

Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the various and sundry speeches of Albright, Berger and Co. about the need for regime change, the heavy bombings (Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq; a fact never commented on by most), etc.

Instead, the Iraq War is parlayed into some Bush family plot to avenge Daddy’s honor.

The US has made it a point of policy to prop up whatever governments in the region keep the oil spigot open. This included the Shah of Iran before he was deposed. It included Saddam before we had to take him off of his high chair. And it includes the Saudis, which will probably be the next group to go.

It is not a development that has emerged during the last two terms of this administration, however. The US clearly understood the need for oil many years ago, and that in order to keep the machinery running, we would need a lot of it. Our policy in the region reflects that.

[Arraya]

“Unwarranted attack against Iraq”. Hmmm. Curious. Would you explain your reasoning on this one?

Yes, it was warrented we needed the oil. Geez, everybody knows that. Unfortunately we are still about 500K bbl per day under pre-war production levels so it do not help with the price that much.

Check out the speech from cheney when he was chairman of Halliburten. I’m sure oil was not on their mind at all when planning to go to Iraq. Not so much oil for profits but oil to maintain our way of life. We can’t seem to get much more the 85 million barrels per day out of the ground and the number will soon be decreasing. Some people think that is a monumental problem and Bush and Cheney are some of those people.

http://www.peakoil.net/Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf

“Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.

By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we will need n additional 50 million barrels per day.”

Cognitive dissonance is our national condition….

[Arraya]

“Unwarranted attack against Iraq”. Hmmm. Curious. Would you explain your reasoning on this one?

Yes, it was warrented we needed the oil. Geez, everybody knows that. Unfortunately we are still about 500K bbl per day under pre-war production levels so it do not help with the price that much.

Check out the speech from cheney when he was chairman of Halliburten. I’m sure oil was not on their mind at all when planning to go to Iraq. Not so much oil for profits but oil to maintain our way of life. We can’t seem to get much more the 85 million barrels per day out of the ground and the number will soon be decreasing. Some people think that is a monumental problem and Bush and Cheney are some of those people.

http://www.peakoil.net/Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf

“Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.

By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we will need n additional 50 million barrels per day.”

Cognitive dissonance is our national condition….

[Arraya]

“Unwarranted attack against Iraq”. Hmmm. Curious. Would you explain your reasoning on this one?

Yes, it was warrented we needed the oil. Geez, everybody knows that. Unfortunately we are still about 500K bbl per day under pre-war production levels so it do not help with the price that much.

Check out the speech from cheney when he was chairman of Halliburten. I’m sure oil was not on their mind at all when planning to go to Iraq. Not so much oil for profits but oil to maintain our way of life. We can’t seem to get much more the 85 million barrels per day out of the ground and the number will soon be decreasing. Some people think that is a monumental problem and Bush and Cheney are some of those people.

http://www.peakoil.net/Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf

“Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.

By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we will need n additional 50 million barrels per day.”

Cognitive dissonance is our national condition….

[Arraya]

“Unwarranted attack against Iraq”. Hmmm. Curious. Would you explain your reasoning on this one?

Yes, it was warrented we needed the oil. Geez, everybody knows that. Unfortunately we are still about 500K bbl per day under pre-war production levels so it do not help with the price that much.

Check out the speech from cheney when he was chairman of Halliburten. I’m sure oil was not on their mind at all when planning to go to Iraq. Not so much oil for profits but oil to maintain our way of life. We can’t seem to get much more the 85 million barrels per day out of the ground and the number will soon be decreasing. Some people think that is a monumental problem and Bush and Cheney are some of those people.

http://www.peakoil.net/Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf

“Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.

By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we will need n additional 50 million barrels per day.”

Cognitive dissonance is our national condition….

[Allan from Fallbrook]

“Unwarranted attack against Iraq”. Hmmm. Curious. Would you explain your reasoning on this one?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

“Unwarranted attack against Iraq”. Hmmm. Curious. Would you explain your reasoning on this one?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

“Unwarranted attack against Iraq”. Hmmm. Curious. Would you explain your reasoning on this one?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

“Unwarranted attack against Iraq”. Hmmm. Curious. Would you explain your reasoning on this one?

[stockstradr]

“read Charlie Wilson’s War which details the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. It’s an incredible story and a fascinating read.”

I absolutely agree. And what are the lessons from that previous period of history?

What is the Great Dark Secret of history that Americans are too ignorant to know or too proud to discuss? Read this excerpt from an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser:

Q [Interviewer]: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

B[Zbigniew Brzezinski]: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

OK, so what is the Great Dark Secret?

THE FACTS
1) Carter, Brzezinski, and others in the administration decided back in July ’79 to fund covert CIA involvement in the Afghanistan civil war with the goal to give Russia a Vietnam-like failed war.
2) That conspiracy became wildly “successful” and many historians later concluded it not only gave Russia a Vietnam-like failed war (on a greater scale), but was a pivotal element in the collapse of the entire Soviet Union.
3) Afghanistan was the real victim and “paid” the price to the tune of over ONE MILLION Afghan lives and their country was reduced to rubble, all so that America could give Russia its Vietnam on Afghani soil.
4) America sent countless CIA operatives into Afghanistan during the war, to train Afghanis how to be terrorists against Russians in Afghanistan. America sent millions of dollars in weapons into Afghanistan. What downed the 333 Russian helicopters lost during that war? It was mostly American shoulder-fired missiles.
5) Osama bin Laden was trained to be a terrorist and gained his reputation during the Afghanistan war. He fought the Russians with weapons purchased with our tax dollars, and facts suggest he was trained in part by our CIA to be a terrorist. At that time he was viewed by our CIA as a key operative within Afghanistan. It is a FACT that many Afghans who later became key leaders in Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorist training camps, were in fact trained to be terrorists by our CIA with our tax dollars. Later, as Al Qaeda, they trained the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Our CIA taught the teachers. So what turned them from “terrorist friends of the USA” (who attack Russians) INTO Al Qaeda terrorists who hate and attack Americans?

That is the first part of the Great Dark Secret. Here comes the second part…

6) After the Russian withdrawal, America turned its back on Afghanistan and abandoned that country in the middle of their frigid winter…with its million dead, many more million wounded, and all of Afghanistan reduced to rubble.

From the Afghan perspective, America betrayed Afghanistan after Afghanistan had made the ultimate sacrifice so that America could give Russia its Vietnam. Our CIA trained thousands to be terrorists and funded the Afghanistan war so they could hone their skills. Then America really pissed them off, made those terrorists hate our guts – at a time when those killers were looking for something to attack (because their civil war was over)

If you understand that (and also America’s support for Israel), then you understand the root causes behind the very birth of Al Qaeda, and the 9/11 attacks upon the USA.

So what has America done recently in Afghanistan after 9/11? We had another war on their soil, reducing their country AGAIN to rubble, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Afghans. Then we abandoned their country again so that we could go stage an unwarranted attack against Iraq. That IS history repeating itself in Afghanistan..and now in Iraq.

What America should have done after 9/11 is not destroy Afghanistan but instead completely rebuild Afghanistan, which would have been keeping our promise (and moral debt) to Afghanistan.

What is really scary is how few Americans understand the above history.

[stockstradr]

“read Charlie Wilson’s War which details the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. It’s an incredible story and a fascinating read.”

I absolutely agree. And what are the lessons from that previous period of history?

What is the Great Dark Secret of history that Americans are too ignorant to know or too proud to discuss? Read this excerpt from an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser:

Q [Interviewer]: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

B[Zbigniew Brzezinski]: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

OK, so what is the Great Dark Secret?

THE FACTS
1) Carter, Brzezinski, and others in the administration decided back in July ’79 to fund covert CIA involvement in the Afghanistan civil war with the goal to give Russia a Vietnam-like failed war.
2) That conspiracy became wildly “successful” and many historians later concluded it not only gave Russia a Vietnam-like failed war (on a greater scale), but was a pivotal element in the collapse of the entire Soviet Union.
3) Afghanistan was the real victim and “paid” the price to the tune of over ONE MILLION Afghan lives and their country was reduced to rubble, all so that America could give Russia its Vietnam on Afghani soil.
4) America sent countless CIA operatives into Afghanistan during the war, to train Afghanis how to be terrorists against Russians in Afghanistan. America sent millions of dollars in weapons into Afghanistan. What downed the 333 Russian helicopters lost during that war? It was mostly American shoulder-fired missiles.
5) Osama bin Laden was trained to be a terrorist and gained his reputation during the Afghanistan war. He fought the Russians with weapons purchased with our tax dollars, and facts suggest he was trained in part by our CIA to be a terrorist. At that time he was viewed by our CIA as a key operative within Afghanistan. It is a FACT that many Afghans who later became key leaders in Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorist training camps, were in fact trained to be terrorists by our CIA with our tax dollars. Later, as Al Qaeda, they trained the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Our CIA taught the teachers. So what turned them from “terrorist friends of the USA” (who attack Russians) INTO Al Qaeda terrorists who hate and attack Americans?

That is the first part of the Great Dark Secret. Here comes the second part…

6) After the Russian withdrawal, America turned its back on Afghanistan and abandoned that country in the middle of their frigid winter…with its million dead, many more million wounded, and all of Afghanistan reduced to rubble.

From the Afghan perspective, America betrayed Afghanistan after Afghanistan had made the ultimate sacrifice so that America could give Russia its Vietnam. Our CIA trained thousands to be terrorists and funded the Afghanistan war so they could hone their skills. Then America really pissed them off, made those terrorists hate our guts – at a time when those killers were looking for something to attack (because their civil war was over)

If you understand that (and also America’s support for Israel), then you understand the root causes behind the very birth of Al Qaeda, and the 9/11 attacks upon the USA.

So what has America done recently in Afghanistan after 9/11? We had another war on their soil, reducing their country AGAIN to rubble, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Afghans. Then we abandoned their country again so that we could go stage an unwarranted attack against Iraq. That IS history repeating itself in Afghanistan..and now in Iraq.

What America should have done after 9/11 is not destroy Afghanistan but instead completely rebuild Afghanistan, which would have been keeping our promise (and moral debt) to Afghanistan.

What is really scary is how few Americans understand the above history.

[stockstradr]

“read Charlie Wilson’s War which details the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. It’s an incredible story and a fascinating read.”

I absolutely agree. And what are the lessons from that previous period of history?

What is the Great Dark Secret of history that Americans are too ignorant to know or too proud to discuss? Read this excerpt from an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser:

Q [Interviewer]: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

B[Zbigniew Brzezinski]: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

OK, so what is the Great Dark Secret?

THE FACTS
1) Carter, Brzezinski, and others in the administration decided back in July ’79 to fund covert CIA involvement in the Afghanistan civil war with the goal to give Russia a Vietnam-like failed war.
2) That conspiracy became wildly “successful” and many historians later concluded it not only gave Russia a Vietnam-like failed war (on a greater scale), but was a pivotal element in the collapse of the entire Soviet Union.
3) Afghanistan was the real victim and “paid” the price to the tune of over ONE MILLION Afghan lives and their country was reduced to rubble, all so that America could give Russia its Vietnam on Afghani soil.
4) America sent countless CIA operatives into Afghanistan during the war, to train Afghanis how to be terrorists against Russians in Afghanistan. America sent millions of dollars in weapons into Afghanistan. What downed the 333 Russian helicopters lost during that war? It was mostly American shoulder-fired missiles.
5) Osama bin Laden was trained to be a terrorist and gained his reputation during the Afghanistan war. He fought the Russians with weapons purchased with our tax dollars, and facts suggest he was trained in part by our CIA to be a terrorist. At that time he was viewed by our CIA as a key operative within Afghanistan. It is a FACT that many Afghans who later became key leaders in Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorist training camps, were in fact trained to be terrorists by our CIA with our tax dollars. Later, as Al Qaeda, they trained the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Our CIA taught the teachers. So what turned them from “terrorist friends of the USA” (who attack Russians) INTO Al Qaeda terrorists who hate and attack Americans?

That is the first part of the Great Dark Secret. Here comes the second part…

6) After the Russian withdrawal, America turned its back on Afghanistan and abandoned that country in the middle of their frigid winter…with its million dead, many more million wounded, and all of Afghanistan reduced to rubble.

From the Afghan perspective, America betrayed Afghanistan after Afghanistan had made the ultimate sacrifice so that America could give Russia its Vietnam. Our CIA trained thousands to be terrorists and funded the Afghanistan war so they could hone their skills. Then America really pissed them off, made those terrorists hate our guts – at a time when those killers were looking for something to attack (because their civil war was over)

If you understand that (and also America’s support for Israel), then you understand the root causes behind the very birth of Al Qaeda, and the 9/11 attacks upon the USA.

So what has America done recently in Afghanistan after 9/11? We had another war on their soil, reducing their country AGAIN to rubble, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Afghans. Then we abandoned their country again so that we could go stage an unwarranted attack against Iraq. That IS history repeating itself in Afghanistan..and now in Iraq.

What America should have done after 9/11 is not destroy Afghanistan but instead completely rebuild Afghanistan, which would have been keeping our promise (and moral debt) to Afghanistan.

What is really scary is how few Americans understand the above history.

[stockstradr]

“read Charlie Wilson’s War which details the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. It’s an incredible story and a fascinating read.”

I absolutely agree. And what are the lessons from that previous period of history?

What is the Great Dark Secret of history that Americans are too ignorant to know or too proud to discuss? Read this excerpt from an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser:

Q [Interviewer]: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

B[Zbigniew Brzezinski]: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

OK, so what is the Great Dark Secret?

THE FACTS
1) Carter, Brzezinski, and others in the administration decided back in July ’79 to fund covert CIA involvement in the Afghanistan civil war with the goal to give Russia a Vietnam-like failed war.
2) That conspiracy became wildly “successful” and many historians later concluded it not only gave Russia a Vietnam-like failed war (on a greater scale), but was a pivotal element in the collapse of the entire Soviet Union.
3) Afghanistan was the real victim and “paid” the price to the tune of over ONE MILLION Afghan lives and their country was reduced to rubble, all so that America could give Russia its Vietnam on Afghani soil.
4) America sent countless CIA operatives into Afghanistan during the war, to train Afghanis how to be terrorists against Russians in Afghanistan. America sent millions of dollars in weapons into Afghanistan. What downed the 333 Russian helicopters lost during that war? It was mostly American shoulder-fired missiles.
5) Osama bin Laden was trained to be a terrorist and gained his reputation during the Afghanistan war. He fought the Russians with weapons purchased with our tax dollars, and facts suggest he was trained in part by our CIA to be a terrorist. At that time he was viewed by our CIA as a key operative within Afghanistan. It is a FACT that many Afghans who later became key leaders in Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorist training camps, were in fact trained to be terrorists by our CIA with our tax dollars. Later, as Al Qaeda, they trained the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Our CIA taught the teachers. So what turned them from “terrorist friends of the USA” (who attack Russians) INTO Al Qaeda terrorists who hate and attack Americans?

That is the first part of the Great Dark Secret. Here comes the second part…

6) After the Russian withdrawal, America turned its back on Afghanistan and abandoned that country in the middle of their frigid winter…with its million dead, many more million wounded, and all of Afghanistan reduced to rubble.

From the Afghan perspective, America betrayed Afghanistan after Afghanistan had made the ultimate sacrifice so that America could give Russia its Vietnam. Our CIA trained thousands to be terrorists and funded the Afghanistan war so they could hone their skills. Then America really pissed them off, made those terrorists hate our guts – at a time when those killers were looking for something to attack (because their civil war was over)

If you understand that (and also America’s support for Israel), then you understand the root causes behind the very birth of Al Qaeda, and the 9/11 attacks upon the USA.

So what has America done recently in Afghanistan after 9/11? We had another war on their soil, reducing their country AGAIN to rubble, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Afghans. Then we abandoned their country again so that we could go stage an unwarranted attack against Iraq. That IS history repeating itself in Afghanistan..and now in Iraq.

What America should have done after 9/11 is not destroy Afghanistan but instead completely rebuild Afghanistan, which would have been keeping our promise (and moral debt) to Afghanistan.

What is really scary is how few Americans understand the above history.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

My dad was with the Marines in both WWII and Korea, as was my uncle. My dad was a grunt, while my uncle was a fighter pilot (he’s the family glory boy).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

My dad was with the Marines in both WWII and Korea, as was my uncle. My dad was a grunt, while my uncle was a fighter pilot (he’s the family glory boy).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

My dad was with the Marines in both WWII and Korea, as was my uncle. My dad was a grunt, while my uncle was a fighter pilot (he’s the family glory boy).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

My dad was with the Marines in both WWII and Korea, as was my uncle. My dad was a grunt, while my uncle was a fighter pilot (he’s the family glory boy).

[NotCranky]

Your dad served in WWII?Probably Korea? I have had somewhat close relationships with a few Filipinos of that generation. They certainly are appreciative of the efforts in the Pacific.
Happy new year to you too. I am looking forward to it.

[NotCranky]

Your dad served in WWII?Probably Korea? I have had somewhat close relationships with a few Filipinos of that generation. They certainly are appreciative of the efforts in the Pacific.
Happy new year to you too. I am looking forward to it.

[NotCranky]

Your dad served in WWII?Probably Korea? I have had somewhat close relationships with a few Filipinos of that generation. They certainly are appreciative of the efforts in the Pacific.
Happy new year to you too. I am looking forward to it.

[NotCranky]

Your dad served in WWII?Probably Korea? I have had somewhat close relationships with a few Filipinos of that generation. They certainly are appreciative of the efforts in the Pacific.
Happy new year to you too. I am looking forward to it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I dated a nice Jewish girl in high school. She was doing the same thing (rebelling against her parents and nice Jewish boys). I guess in her opinion nothing was worse than a not-so-nice Catholic boy (I was driving a muscle car at the time and had less than a pleasant personality). She appeared to be right, since her mom took an almost instant loathing to me. Good times.

Speaking of American Christian boys and the Third Reich: My dad and uncle were both forbidden to join the Army as that might entail fighting in Europe and possibly killing Germans. My Grandma was perfectly okay with them fighting with the Marines in the Pacific, though. I won’t get into any theories on that line of thinking.

Hey, Rus, happy new year. Hope you have a happy and prosperous new year.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I dated a nice Jewish girl in high school. She was doing the same thing (rebelling against her parents and nice Jewish boys). I guess in her opinion nothing was worse than a not-so-nice Catholic boy (I was driving a muscle car at the time and had less than a pleasant personality). She appeared to be right, since her mom took an almost instant loathing to me. Good times.

Speaking of American Christian boys and the Third Reich: My dad and uncle were both forbidden to join the Army as that might entail fighting in Europe and possibly killing Germans. My Grandma was perfectly okay with them fighting with the Marines in the Pacific, though. I won’t get into any theories on that line of thinking.

Hey, Rus, happy new year. Hope you have a happy and prosperous new year.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I dated a nice Jewish girl in high school. She was doing the same thing (rebelling against her parents and nice Jewish boys). I guess in her opinion nothing was worse than a not-so-nice Catholic boy (I was driving a muscle car at the time and had less than a pleasant personality). She appeared to be right, since her mom took an almost instant loathing to me. Good times.

Speaking of American Christian boys and the Third Reich: My dad and uncle were both forbidden to join the Army as that might entail fighting in Europe and possibly killing Germans. My Grandma was perfectly okay with them fighting with the Marines in the Pacific, though. I won’t get into any theories on that line of thinking.

Hey, Rus, happy new year. Hope you have a happy and prosperous new year.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I dated a nice Jewish girl in high school. She was doing the same thing (rebelling against her parents and nice Jewish boys). I guess in her opinion nothing was worse than a not-so-nice Catholic boy (I was driving a muscle car at the time and had less than a pleasant personality). She appeared to be right, since her mom took an almost instant loathing to me. Good times.

Speaking of American Christian boys and the Third Reich: My dad and uncle were both forbidden to join the Army as that might entail fighting in Europe and possibly killing Germans. My Grandma was perfectly okay with them fighting with the Marines in the Pacific, though. I won’t get into any theories on that line of thinking.

Hey, Rus, happy new year. Hope you have a happy and prosperous new year.

[NotCranky]

She wanted to marry an “American as Apple Pie”, Christian.
I looked the part, so she went to work on me. She did eventually succeed with someone else. Sai Baba was a guru with an AFRO, her guru. You can Google him, he is the guy dressed in Hare Krishna orange. It would not surprise me if modern day gurus were hawking BBQ-Sauce.

Maybe this guess as to her motivations will help you understand..
I think the girl was grateful that American, Christian boys had saved her relatives from Hitler but also was rebelling against her own traditions…except for the part about not shaving her under arms.

[NotCranky]

She wanted to marry an “American as Apple Pie”, Christian.
I looked the part, so she went to work on me. She did eventually succeed with someone else. Sai Baba was a guru with an AFRO, her guru. You can Google him, he is the guy dressed in Hare Krishna orange. It would not surprise me if modern day gurus were hawking BBQ-Sauce.

Maybe this guess as to her motivations will help you understand..
I think the girl was grateful that American, Christian boys had saved her relatives from Hitler but also was rebelling against her own traditions…except for the part about not shaving her under arms.

[NotCranky]

She wanted to marry an “American as Apple Pie”, Christian.
I looked the part, so she went to work on me. She did eventually succeed with someone else. Sai Baba was a guru with an AFRO, her guru. You can Google him, he is the guy dressed in Hare Krishna orange. It would not surprise me if modern day gurus were hawking BBQ-Sauce.

Maybe this guess as to her motivations will help you understand..
I think the girl was grateful that American, Christian boys had saved her relatives from Hitler but also was rebelling against her own traditions…except for the part about not shaving her under arms.

[NotCranky]

She wanted to marry an “American as Apple Pie”, Christian.
I looked the part, so she went to work on me. She did eventually succeed with someone else. Sai Baba was a guru with an AFRO, her guru. You can Google him, he is the guy dressed in Hare Krishna orange. It would not surprise me if modern day gurus were hawking BBQ-Sauce.

Maybe this guess as to her motivations will help you understand..
I think the girl was grateful that American, Christian boys had saved her relatives from Hitler but also was rebelling against her own traditions…except for the part about not shaving her under arms.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I went to St. Francis! High school, that is. The Jesuits are instinctively mistrustful of Franciscans, especially with that “give up all your earthly possessions” nonsense. What’s up with that?

I am still not getting my head around a Jewish girl trying to lead you to Catholicism. Did she feel you weren’t a good fit for Judaism?

And who is this Sai Baba guy? He’s not the guy who invented Hawaiian BBQ, is he?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I went to St. Francis! High school, that is. The Jesuits are instinctively mistrustful of Franciscans, especially with that “give up all your earthly possessions” nonsense. What’s up with that?

I am still not getting my head around a Jewish girl trying to lead you to Catholicism. Did she feel you weren’t a good fit for Judaism?

And who is this Sai Baba guy? He’s not the guy who invented Hawaiian BBQ, is he?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I went to St. Francis! High school, that is. The Jesuits are instinctively mistrustful of Franciscans, especially with that “give up all your earthly possessions” nonsense. What’s up with that?

I am still not getting my head around a Jewish girl trying to lead you to Catholicism. Did she feel you weren’t a good fit for Judaism?

And who is this Sai Baba guy? He’s not the guy who invented Hawaiian BBQ, is he?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I went to St. Francis! High school, that is. The Jesuits are instinctively mistrustful of Franciscans, especially with that “give up all your earthly possessions” nonsense. What’s up with that?

I am still not getting my head around a Jewish girl trying to lead you to Catholicism. Did she feel you weren’t a good fit for Judaism?

And who is this Sai Baba guy? He’s not the guy who invented Hawaiian BBQ, is he?

[NotCranky]

O.K. Allan I trust you, A Jewish girl I used to date tried lead me to St. Francis. Yeah, imagine that. She was probably being pretty insightful too, come to think of it.
She wanted Sai Baba to marry us, it was just a little too much for Rustico, who kept getting in trouble for calling Sai Baba “buck wheat”.

[NotCranky]

O.K. Allan I trust you, A Jewish girl I used to date tried lead me to St. Francis. Yeah, imagine that. She was probably being pretty insightful too, come to think of it.
She wanted Sai Baba to marry us, it was just a little too much for Rustico, who kept getting in trouble for calling Sai Baba “buck wheat”.

[NotCranky]

O.K. Allan I trust you, A Jewish girl I used to date tried lead me to St. Francis. Yeah, imagine that. She was probably being pretty insightful too, come to think of it.
She wanted Sai Baba to marry us, it was just a little too much for Rustico, who kept getting in trouble for calling Sai Baba “buck wheat”.

[NotCranky]

O.K. Allan I trust you, A Jewish girl I used to date tried lead me to St. Francis. Yeah, imagine that. She was probably being pretty insightful too, come to think of it.
She wanted Sai Baba to marry us, it was just a little too much for Rustico, who kept getting in trouble for calling Sai Baba “buck wheat”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: Benefits of a German pope. Of course, his being a member of the Hitler Youth when he was young is something of a drawback, but I’m sure the Vatican PR corps has managed to suppress that somehow.

Rus: Opus Dei is actually a pretty interesting group, if perhaps a little too “involved” with the mission. And, when you have a Jesuit referring to someone else within the Mother Church as scary…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: Benefits of a German pope. Of course, his being a member of the Hitler Youth when he was young is something of a drawback, but I’m sure the Vatican PR corps has managed to suppress that somehow.

Rus: Opus Dei is actually a pretty interesting group, if perhaps a little too “involved” with the mission. And, when you have a Jesuit referring to someone else within the Mother Church as scary…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: Benefits of a German pope. Of course, his being a member of the Hitler Youth when he was young is something of a drawback, but I’m sure the Vatican PR corps has managed to suppress that somehow.

Rus: Opus Dei is actually a pretty interesting group, if perhaps a little too “involved” with the mission. And, when you have a Jesuit referring to someone else within the Mother Church as scary…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: Benefits of a German pope. Of course, his being a member of the Hitler Youth when he was young is something of a drawback, but I’m sure the Vatican PR corps has managed to suppress that somehow.

Rus: Opus Dei is actually a pretty interesting group, if perhaps a little too “involved” with the mission. And, when you have a Jesuit referring to someone else within the Mother Church as scary…

[nostradamus]

This pope doesn’t seem so scary to me… Seems like a pretty cool dude!

[img_assist|nid=6019|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=386|height=500]

[nostradamus]

This pope doesn’t seem so scary to me… Seems like a pretty cool dude!

[img_assist|nid=6019|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=386|height=500]

[nostradamus]

This pope doesn’t seem so scary to me… Seems like a pretty cool dude!

[img_assist|nid=6019|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=386|height=500]

[nostradamus]

This pope doesn’t seem so scary to me… Seems like a pretty cool dude!

[img_assist|nid=6019|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=386|height=500]

[NotCranky]

Rus: You just gotta get those shots in on the Catholics, doncha?

Not aimed at all Catholics just the ones worth saving ;).

“I’m gonna give your name to Opus Dei,”
You would probably be doing me a favor, if not for the depths of my heresy. The mission, as I understand it has worth and merit.

[NotCranky]

Rus: You just gotta get those shots in on the Catholics, doncha?

Not aimed at all Catholics just the ones worth saving ;).

“I’m gonna give your name to Opus Dei,”
You would probably be doing me a favor, if not for the depths of my heresy. The mission, as I understand it has worth and merit.

[NotCranky]

Rus: You just gotta get those shots in on the Catholics, doncha?

Not aimed at all Catholics just the ones worth saving ;).

“I’m gonna give your name to Opus Dei,”
You would probably be doing me a favor, if not for the depths of my heresy. The mission, as I understand it has worth and merit.

[NotCranky]

Rus: You just gotta get those shots in on the Catholics, doncha?

Not aimed at all Catholics just the ones worth saving ;).

“I’m gonna give your name to Opus Dei,”
You would probably be doing me a favor, if not for the depths of my heresy. The mission, as I understand it has worth and merit.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: You just gotta get those shots in on the Catholics, doncha?

The Pope is much busier with his job at the Illuminati, keeping an eye on the Knights Templar, and subverting Protestantism, Judaism, Islam and the Green Party, to be screwing around with this penny ante crap.

If you aren’t careful, I’m gonna give your name to Opus Dei, and then you’ll be in for it. You better watch it, buster, us Jesuits know people…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: You just gotta get those shots in on the Catholics, doncha?

The Pope is much busier with his job at the Illuminati, keeping an eye on the Knights Templar, and subverting Protestantism, Judaism, Islam and the Green Party, to be screwing around with this penny ante crap.

If you aren’t careful, I’m gonna give your name to Opus Dei, and then you’ll be in for it. You better watch it, buster, us Jesuits know people…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: You just gotta get those shots in on the Catholics, doncha?

The Pope is much busier with his job at the Illuminati, keeping an eye on the Knights Templar, and subverting Protestantism, Judaism, Islam and the Green Party, to be screwing around with this penny ante crap.

If you aren’t careful, I’m gonna give your name to Opus Dei, and then you’ll be in for it. You better watch it, buster, us Jesuits know people…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: You just gotta get those shots in on the Catholics, doncha?

The Pope is much busier with his job at the Illuminati, keeping an eye on the Knights Templar, and subverting Protestantism, Judaism, Islam and the Green Party, to be screwing around with this penny ante crap.

If you aren’t careful, I’m gonna give your name to Opus Dei, and then you’ll be in for it. You better watch it, buster, us Jesuits know people…

[NotCranky]

It seems impossible to figure out who is in bed with who , but now that you mention it Allan, I am sure the Pope has his turn. JK

[NotCranky]

It seems impossible to figure out who is in bed with who , but now that you mention it Allan, I am sure the Pope has his turn. JK

[NotCranky]

It seems impossible to figure out who is in bed with who , but now that you mention it Allan, I am sure the Pope has his turn. JK

[NotCranky]

It seems impossible to figure out who is in bed with who , but now that you mention it Allan, I am sure the Pope has his turn. JK

[Anonymous]

Nost: Dude, why do I have to be al Qaeda? I’m Catholic, and I fear that having an affiliation with Osama might create some cognitive dissonance.

Lmao. 🙂 You’re funny, Allan. By the way, that cognitive dissonance is a b*tch!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: Gee, thanks. Really. I feel soooo much better about myself now.

Yeah, cognitive dissonance is a bitch. Fortunately, I try not to think too much, and that really seems to help. That’s one of the nice things about having that arch conservative mindset: I’m well conditioned enough to not question things (or look too closely at them).

[Anonymous]

Allan. Oh, dear. I didn’t mean it like that. I meant I like your wit. That’s all I meant. Trust me on that, please. Sometimes what I say comes out sounding the opposite of the way I intended it. OK?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: No worries, please relax. I knew what you meant, and was responding accordingly. No insult taken, and I know there was none intended.

Ta.

[Anonymous]

Ahhh…sigh of relief. 🙂

[Anonymous]

Ahhh…sigh of relief. 🙂

[Anonymous]

Ahhh…sigh of relief. 🙂

[Anonymous]

Ahhh…sigh of relief. 🙂

[Anonymous]

Ahhh…sigh of relief. 🙂

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: No worries, please relax. I knew what you meant, and was responding accordingly. No insult taken, and I know there was none intended.

Ta.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: No worries, please relax. I knew what you meant, and was responding accordingly. No insult taken, and I know there was none intended.

Ta.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: No worries, please relax. I knew what you meant, and was responding accordingly. No insult taken, and I know there was none intended.

Ta.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: No worries, please relax. I knew what you meant, and was responding accordingly. No insult taken, and I know there was none intended.

Ta.

[Anonymous]

Allan. Oh, dear. I didn’t mean it like that. I meant I like your wit. That’s all I meant. Trust me on that, please. Sometimes what I say comes out sounding the opposite of the way I intended it. OK?

[Anonymous]

Allan. Oh, dear. I didn’t mean it like that. I meant I like your wit. That’s all I meant. Trust me on that, please. Sometimes what I say comes out sounding the opposite of the way I intended it. OK?

[Anonymous]

Allan. Oh, dear. I didn’t mean it like that. I meant I like your wit. That’s all I meant. Trust me on that, please. Sometimes what I say comes out sounding the opposite of the way I intended it. OK?

[Anonymous]

Allan. Oh, dear. I didn’t mean it like that. I meant I like your wit. That’s all I meant. Trust me on that, please. Sometimes what I say comes out sounding the opposite of the way I intended it. OK?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: Gee, thanks. Really. I feel soooo much better about myself now.

Yeah, cognitive dissonance is a bitch. Fortunately, I try not to think too much, and that really seems to help. That’s one of the nice things about having that arch conservative mindset: I’m well conditioned enough to not question things (or look too closely at them).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: Gee, thanks. Really. I feel soooo much better about myself now.

Yeah, cognitive dissonance is a bitch. Fortunately, I try not to think too much, and that really seems to help. That’s one of the nice things about having that arch conservative mindset: I’m well conditioned enough to not question things (or look too closely at them).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: Gee, thanks. Really. I feel soooo much better about myself now.

Yeah, cognitive dissonance is a bitch. Fortunately, I try not to think too much, and that really seems to help. That’s one of the nice things about having that arch conservative mindset: I’m well conditioned enough to not question things (or look too closely at them).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: Gee, thanks. Really. I feel soooo much better about myself now.

Yeah, cognitive dissonance is a bitch. Fortunately, I try not to think too much, and that really seems to help. That’s one of the nice things about having that arch conservative mindset: I’m well conditioned enough to not question things (or look too closely at them).

[Anonymous]

Nost: Dude, why do I have to be al Qaeda? I’m Catholic, and I fear that having an affiliation with Osama might create some cognitive dissonance.

Lmao. 🙂 You’re funny, Allan. By the way, that cognitive dissonance is a b*tch!

[Anonymous]

Nost: Dude, why do I have to be al Qaeda? I’m Catholic, and I fear that having an affiliation with Osama might create some cognitive dissonance.

Lmao. 🙂 You’re funny, Allan. By the way, that cognitive dissonance is a b*tch!

[Anonymous]

Nost: Dude, why do I have to be al Qaeda? I’m Catholic, and I fear that having an affiliation with Osama might create some cognitive dissonance.

Lmao. 🙂 You’re funny, Allan. By the way, that cognitive dissonance is a b*tch!

[Anonymous]

Nost: Dude, why do I have to be al Qaeda? I’m Catholic, and I fear that having an affiliation with Osama might create some cognitive dissonance.

Lmao. 🙂 You’re funny, Allan. By the way, that cognitive dissonance is a b*tch!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: Dude, why do I have to be al Qaeda? I’m Catholic, and I fear that having an affiliation with Osama might create some cognitive dissonance.

Besides, everyone knows that Elvis is manning the fry station at the Burger King in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Where’ve you been?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: Dude, why do I have to be al Qaeda? I’m Catholic, and I fear that having an affiliation with Osama might create some cognitive dissonance.

Besides, everyone knows that Elvis is manning the fry station at the Burger King in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Where’ve you been?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: Dude, why do I have to be al Qaeda? I’m Catholic, and I fear that having an affiliation with Osama might create some cognitive dissonance.

Besides, everyone knows that Elvis is manning the fry station at the Burger King in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Where’ve you been?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: Dude, why do I have to be al Qaeda? I’m Catholic, and I fear that having an affiliation with Osama might create some cognitive dissonance.

Besides, everyone knows that Elvis is manning the fry station at the Burger King in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Where’ve you been?

[34f3f3f]

Maybe she is still alive and hiding out with Elvis, JFK, and Tupac.

I think you could be onto something here nostradamus…or, Musharraf heard a rumor that a high ranking Al-Qaeda operative was dressed up as Bhutto and doing the rounds. He then told the CIA, and Osama’s your Uncle! His arch enemy is out of the way, and America carries the can, while Al-Qaeda tittles in the shadows.

In all seriousness, I don’t believe the CIA had anything to do with it, and while it is tactless to make humor of a tragedy, conspiratorial sagas are a bit like soap operas in that they pander to that mental state somewhere between fantasy and reality.

[34f3f3f]

Maybe she is still alive and hiding out with Elvis, JFK, and Tupac.

I think you could be onto something here nostradamus…or, Musharraf heard a rumor that a high ranking Al-Qaeda operative was dressed up as Bhutto and doing the rounds. He then told the CIA, and Osama’s your Uncle! His arch enemy is out of the way, and America carries the can, while Al-Qaeda tittles in the shadows.

In all seriousness, I don’t believe the CIA had anything to do with it, and while it is tactless to make humor of a tragedy, conspiratorial sagas are a bit like soap operas in that they pander to that mental state somewhere between fantasy and reality.

[34f3f3f]

Maybe she is still alive and hiding out with Elvis, JFK, and Tupac.

I think you could be onto something here nostradamus…or, Musharraf heard a rumor that a high ranking Al-Qaeda operative was dressed up as Bhutto and doing the rounds. He then told the CIA, and Osama’s your Uncle! His arch enemy is out of the way, and America carries the can, while Al-Qaeda tittles in the shadows.

In all seriousness, I don’t believe the CIA had anything to do with it, and while it is tactless to make humor of a tragedy, conspiratorial sagas are a bit like soap operas in that they pander to that mental state somewhere between fantasy and reality.

[34f3f3f]

Maybe she is still alive and hiding out with Elvis, JFK, and Tupac.

I think you could be onto something here nostradamus…or, Musharraf heard a rumor that a high ranking Al-Qaeda operative was dressed up as Bhutto and doing the rounds. He then told the CIA, and Osama’s your Uncle! His arch enemy is out of the way, and America carries the can, while Al-Qaeda tittles in the shadows.

In all seriousness, I don’t believe the CIA had anything to do with it, and while it is tactless to make humor of a tragedy, conspiratorial sagas are a bit like soap operas in that they pander to that mental state somewhere between fantasy and reality.

[34f3f3f]

Maybe she is still alive and hiding out with Elvis, JFK, and Tupac.

I think you could be onto something here nostradamus…or, Musharraf heard a rumor that a high ranking Al-Qaeda operative was dressed up as Bhutto and doing the rounds. He then told the CIA, and Osama’s your Uncle! His arch enemy is out of the way, and America carries the can, while Al-Qaeda tittles in the shadows.

In all seriousness, I don’t believe the CIA had anything to do with it, and while it is tactless to make humor of a tragedy, conspiratorial sagas are a bit like soap operas in that they pander to that mental state somewhere between fantasy and reality.

[paramount]

I’d go with Musharraf as a likely conspirator.

He has much to gain, the means and the motive.

[paramount]

I’d go with Musharraf as a likely conspirator.

He has much to gain, the means and the motive.

[paramount]

I’d go with Musharraf as a likely conspirator.

He has much to gain, the means and the motive.

[paramount]

I’d go with Musharraf as a likely conspirator.

He has much to gain, the means and the motive.

[paramount]

I’d go with Musharraf as a likely conspirator.

He has much to gain, the means and the motive.

[nostradamus]

Maybe she is still alive and hiding out with Elvis, JFK, and Tupac. Maybe Allan is a pseudonym for Al-Qaeda. Maybe the real conspirators are the people who make the signs on buses, limos, and trains, that say “don’t stick hands, feet, or head out of window”.

Or maybe Benazir was just sick of living? I mean, she did stick her head out of the sun roof in a crowd of people after several previous assassination attempts. Did the CIA make her do that? The limo she was in was bullet-proof and bomb-proof, and the only one in the carload who was injured was the one who stuck her head out of the sunroof. No amount of security Musharraf provided could’ve saved her if she was willing to literally “stick her neck out”. That, to me, is the most suspicious thing of all: she seems to have played the biggest role in her own death.

If there are any Al-Qaeda posters on this board please give us your thoughts.

[nostradamus]

Maybe she is still alive and hiding out with Elvis, JFK, and Tupac. Maybe Allan is a pseudonym for Al-Qaeda. Maybe the real conspirators are the people who make the signs on buses, limos, and trains, that say “don’t stick hands, feet, or head out of window”.

Or maybe Benazir was just sick of living? I mean, she did stick her head out of the sun roof in a crowd of people after several previous assassination attempts. Did the CIA make her do that? The limo she was in was bullet-proof and bomb-proof, and the only one in the carload who was injured was the one who stuck her head out of the sunroof. No amount of security Musharraf provided could’ve saved her if she was willing to literally “stick her neck out”. That, to me, is the most suspicious thing of all: she seems to have played the biggest role in her own death.

If there are any Al-Qaeda posters on this board please give us your thoughts.

[nostradamus]

Maybe she is still alive and hiding out with Elvis, JFK, and Tupac. Maybe Allan is a pseudonym for Al-Qaeda. Maybe the real conspirators are the people who make the signs on buses, limos, and trains, that say “don’t stick hands, feet, or head out of window”.

Or maybe Benazir was just sick of living? I mean, she did stick her head out of the sun roof in a crowd of people after several previous assassination attempts. Did the CIA make her do that? The limo she was in was bullet-proof and bomb-proof, and the only one in the carload who was injured was the one who stuck her head out of the sunroof. No amount of security Musharraf provided could’ve saved her if she was willing to literally “stick her neck out”. That, to me, is the most suspicious thing of all: she seems to have played the biggest role in her own death.

If there are any Al-Qaeda posters on this board please give us your thoughts.

[nostradamus]

Maybe she is still alive and hiding out with Elvis, JFK, and Tupac. Maybe Allan is a pseudonym for Al-Qaeda. Maybe the real conspirators are the people who make the signs on buses, limos, and trains, that say “don’t stick hands, feet, or head out of window”.

Or maybe Benazir was just sick of living? I mean, she did stick her head out of the sun roof in a crowd of people after several previous assassination attempts. Did the CIA make her do that? The limo she was in was bullet-proof and bomb-proof, and the only one in the carload who was injured was the one who stuck her head out of the sunroof. No amount of security Musharraf provided could’ve saved her if she was willing to literally “stick her neck out”. That, to me, is the most suspicious thing of all: she seems to have played the biggest role in her own death.

If there are any Al-Qaeda posters on this board please give us your thoughts.

[speedingpullet]

To be honest, I think its a case of serendipidy and bungling simultaneously.

Serendipity, because Musharraf clearly wasn’t going to let her run for election, nor any other party for that matter – his only wish is to remain in power. His ‘election’ of a toady to head the Army, and his crackdown on the Pakistani legal system, plus all the hot air about ‘allowing’ a free and fair election in the new year is clearly a byzantine move on his part to hold onto power for as long as possible.

Bungling, because his govt could have gotten away scott-free if they’d only kept thier mouth shut about the method of her death. My bet is that the govt welcomed the news that she’d been shot, and wanted to make the story go away as soon as possible – hence the totally ludicrous insistance that she hit her head on the sunroof. That way, no one is to blame, and everything is hunky-dory.

Unfortunately, for him, an assassination of a very popular candidate doesn’t go away that easily, so, rather than calming the waters by producing a ‘plausible’ explanation, they’ve shot themselves in the foot.

New footage of the horrible incident has just been aired on CNN – in it you can clearly see a man in sunglasses with a gun shoot at her. Milliseconds later, you can see the back of her veil and her hair lift, and she clearly slumps into the body of the van several seconds before the bomb blast. So, obviously, the govt is wrong in its insistence that she died from a skull fracture.

As for the CIA – I doubt it very much. The US was forging ties with the PPP, and had she lived, would have put increasing pressure on Musharraf to concede proper democratic elections. As Allan points out, the CIA has its hands full with the likes of Chavez and Ahmedinijhad,
Bhutto was technically on ‘our’ side.

Personally, I do believe she was killed by one of the Al Quaida/Taliban factions – no surprise really as she was anathema to their wish to instate Sharia law in Pashtunistan. A secular woman in charge? No way, Jose.

The Govt security forces clearly weren’t fans either, but I think Musharraf is too canny to be linked, explicitly or implicitly, with her assassination – too much of a hot potato, especially when there are so many others that were willing to do the deed in his place, without links to him or his govt.

However, I also believe that Musharraf is guilty implicitly, by not allowing her the security she constantly asked for. By not treating her as a security risk, he dammned her to death. More fool him, as the whole mess has blown up in his face, and the international community is looking very hard at his regieme now, rather than just allowing him to do what he wants, when he wants.

Any way you look at it, its a total cluster$uck.

[speedingpullet]

To be honest, I think its a case of serendipidy and bungling simultaneously.

Serendipity, because Musharraf clearly wasn’t going to let her run for election, nor any other party for that matter – his only wish is to remain in power. His ‘election’ of a toady to head the Army, and his crackdown on the Pakistani legal system, plus all the hot air about ‘allowing’ a free and fair election in the new year is clearly a byzantine move on his part to hold onto power for as long as possible.

Bungling, because his govt could have gotten away scott-free if they’d only kept thier mouth shut about the method of her death. My bet is that the govt welcomed the news that she’d been shot, and wanted to make the story go away as soon as possible – hence the totally ludicrous insistance that she hit her head on the sunroof. That way, no one is to blame, and everything is hunky-dory.

Unfortunately, for him, an assassination of a very popular candidate doesn’t go away that easily, so, rather than calming the waters by producing a ‘plausible’ explanation, they’ve shot themselves in the foot.

New footage of the horrible incident has just been aired on CNN – in it you can clearly see a man in sunglasses with a gun shoot at her. Milliseconds later, you can see the back of her veil and her hair lift, and she clearly slumps into the body of the van several seconds before the bomb blast. So, obviously, the govt is wrong in its insistence that she died from a skull fracture.

As for the CIA – I doubt it very much. The US was forging ties with the PPP, and had she lived, would have put increasing pressure on Musharraf to concede proper democratic elections. As Allan points out, the CIA has its hands full with the likes of Chavez and Ahmedinijhad,
Bhutto was technically on ‘our’ side.

Personally, I do believe she was killed by one of the Al Quaida/Taliban factions – no surprise really as she was anathema to their wish to instate Sharia law in Pashtunistan. A secular woman in charge? No way, Jose.

The Govt security forces clearly weren’t fans either, but I think Musharraf is too canny to be linked, explicitly or implicitly, with her assassination – too much of a hot potato, especially when there are so many others that were willing to do the deed in his place, without links to him or his govt.

However, I also believe that Musharraf is guilty implicitly, by not allowing her the security she constantly asked for. By not treating her as a security risk, he dammned her to death. More fool him, as the whole mess has blown up in his face, and the international community is looking very hard at his regieme now, rather than just allowing him to do what he wants, when he wants.

Any way you look at it, its a total cluster$uck.

[speedingpullet]

To be honest, I think its a case of serendipidy and bungling simultaneously.

Serendipity, because Musharraf clearly wasn’t going to let her run for election, nor any other party for that matter – his only wish is to remain in power. His ‘election’ of a toady to head the Army, and his crackdown on the Pakistani legal system, plus all the hot air about ‘allowing’ a free and fair election in the new year is clearly a byzantine move on his part to hold onto power for as long as possible.

Bungling, because his govt could have gotten away scott-free if they’d only kept thier mouth shut about the method of her death. My bet is that the govt welcomed the news that she’d been shot, and wanted to make the story go away as soon as possible – hence the totally ludicrous insistance that she hit her head on the sunroof. That way, no one is to blame, and everything is hunky-dory.

Unfortunately, for him, an assassination of a very popular candidate doesn’t go away that easily, so, rather than calming the waters by producing a ‘plausible’ explanation, they’ve shot themselves in the foot.

New footage of the horrible incident has just been aired on CNN – in it you can clearly see a man in sunglasses with a gun shoot at her. Milliseconds later, you can see the back of her veil and her hair lift, and she clearly slumps into the body of the van several seconds before the bomb blast. So, obviously, the govt is wrong in its insistence that she died from a skull fracture.

As for the CIA – I doubt it very much. The US was forging ties with the PPP, and had she lived, would have put increasing pressure on Musharraf to concede proper democratic elections. As Allan points out, the CIA has its hands full with the likes of Chavez and Ahmedinijhad,
Bhutto was technically on ‘our’ side.

Personally, I do believe she was killed by one of the Al Quaida/Taliban factions – no surprise really as she was anathema to their wish to instate Sharia law in Pashtunistan. A secular woman in charge? No way, Jose.

The Govt security forces clearly weren’t fans either, but I think Musharraf is too canny to be linked, explicitly or implicitly, with her assassination – too much of a hot potato, especially when there are so many others that were willing to do the deed in his place, without links to him or his govt.

However, I also believe that Musharraf is guilty implicitly, by not allowing her the security she constantly asked for. By not treating her as a security risk, he dammned her to death. More fool him, as the whole mess has blown up in his face, and the international community is looking very hard at his regieme now, rather than just allowing him to do what he wants, when he wants.

Any way you look at it, its a total cluster$uck.

[speedingpullet]

To be honest, I think its a case of serendipidy and bungling simultaneously.

Serendipity, because Musharraf clearly wasn’t going to let her run for election, nor any other party for that matter – his only wish is to remain in power. His ‘election’ of a toady to head the Army, and his crackdown on the Pakistani legal system, plus all the hot air about ‘allowing’ a free and fair election in the new year is clearly a byzantine move on his part to hold onto power for as long as possible.

Bungling, because his govt could have gotten away scott-free if they’d only kept thier mouth shut about the method of her death. My bet is that the govt welcomed the news that she’d been shot, and wanted to make the story go away as soon as possible – hence the totally ludicrous insistance that she hit her head on the sunroof. That way, no one is to blame, and everything is hunky-dory.

Unfortunately, for him, an assassination of a very popular candidate doesn’t go away that easily, so, rather than calming the waters by producing a ‘plausible’ explanation, they’ve shot themselves in the foot.

New footage of the horrible incident has just been aired on CNN – in it you can clearly see a man in sunglasses with a gun shoot at her. Milliseconds later, you can see the back of her veil and her hair lift, and she clearly slumps into the body of the van several seconds before the bomb blast. So, obviously, the govt is wrong in its insistence that she died from a skull fracture.

As for the CIA – I doubt it very much. The US was forging ties with the PPP, and had she lived, would have put increasing pressure on Musharraf to concede proper democratic elections. As Allan points out, the CIA has its hands full with the likes of Chavez and Ahmedinijhad,
Bhutto was technically on ‘our’ side.

Personally, I do believe she was killed by one of the Al Quaida/Taliban factions – no surprise really as she was anathema to their wish to instate Sharia law in Pashtunistan. A secular woman in charge? No way, Jose.

The Govt security forces clearly weren’t fans either, but I think Musharraf is too canny to be linked, explicitly or implicitly, with her assassination – too much of a hot potato, especially when there are so many others that were willing to do the deed in his place, without links to him or his govt.

However, I also believe that Musharraf is guilty implicitly, by not allowing her the security she constantly asked for. By not treating her as a security risk, he dammned her to death. More fool him, as the whole mess has blown up in his face, and the international community is looking very hard at his regieme now, rather than just allowing him to do what he wants, when he wants.

Any way you look at it, its a total cluster$uck.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

qwerty: The CIA, huh? You realize that if the CIA were trying to assassinate Bhutto, they would have offed Chavez in Venezuela instead. These guys can’t find their a** with a flashlight and both hands.

Feeding the conspiracy beast, though, I would suggest it is more likely that Musharraf did the deed and then blamed al Qaeda. Two birds with one stone: You get rid of a highly popular opposition leader, and also put yourself in a position to capture even more power in order to bring al Qaeda to heel.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

qwerty: The CIA, huh? You realize that if the CIA were trying to assassinate Bhutto, they would have offed Chavez in Venezuela instead. These guys can’t find their a** with a flashlight and both hands.

Feeding the conspiracy beast, though, I would suggest it is more likely that Musharraf did the deed and then blamed al Qaeda. Two birds with one stone: You get rid of a highly popular opposition leader, and also put yourself in a position to capture even more power in order to bring al Qaeda to heel.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

qwerty: The CIA, huh? You realize that if the CIA were trying to assassinate Bhutto, they would have offed Chavez in Venezuela instead. These guys can’t find their a** with a flashlight and both hands.

Feeding the conspiracy beast, though, I would suggest it is more likely that Musharraf did the deed and then blamed al Qaeda. Two birds with one stone: You get rid of a highly popular opposition leader, and also put yourself in a position to capture even more power in order to bring al Qaeda to heel.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

qwerty: The CIA, huh? You realize that if the CIA were trying to assassinate Bhutto, they would have offed Chavez in Venezuela instead. These guys can’t find their a** with a flashlight and both hands.

Feeding the conspiracy beast, though, I would suggest it is more likely that Musharraf did the deed and then blamed al Qaeda. Two birds with one stone: You get rid of a highly popular opposition leader, and also put yourself in a position to capture even more power in order to bring al Qaeda to heel.

[XBoxBoy]

I have no idea if the CIA was involved in Bhutto’s death, but if any of you want something interesting to read, read Charlie Wilson’s War which details the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. It’s an incredible story and a fascinating read.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

I have no idea if the CIA was involved in Bhutto’s death, but if any of you want something interesting to read, read Charlie Wilson’s War which details the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. It’s an incredible story and a fascinating read.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

I have no idea if the CIA was involved in Bhutto’s death, but if any of you want something interesting to read, read Charlie Wilson’s War which details the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. It’s an incredible story and a fascinating read.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

I have no idea if the CIA was involved in Bhutto’s death, but if any of you want something interesting to read, read Charlie Wilson’s War which details the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. It’s an incredible story and a fascinating read.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

I have no idea if the CIA was involved in Bhutto’s death, but if any of you want something interesting to read, read Charlie Wilson’s War which details the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. It’s an incredible story and a fascinating read.

XBoxBoy

[anxvariety]

I don’t think she’s dead.. it looks like she ducks down. Some group probably said you’re going to be killed now or at some point, we’ll setup a fake assassination if you want to call it quits now and live in anonymity. The husband wasn’t mourning and didn’t want an exhumation, because there’s no body.

[anxvariety]

I don’t think she’s dead.. it looks like she ducks down. Some group probably said you’re going to be killed now or at some point, we’ll setup a fake assassination if you want to call it quits now and live in anonymity. The husband wasn’t mourning and didn’t want an exhumation, because there’s no body.

[anxvariety]

I don’t think she’s dead.. it looks like she ducks down. Some group probably said you’re going to be killed now or at some point, we’ll setup a fake assassination if you want to call it quits now and live in anonymity. The husband wasn’t mourning and didn’t want an exhumation, because there’s no body.

[anxvariety]

I don’t think she’s dead.. it looks like she ducks down. Some group probably said you’re going to be killed now or at some point, we’ll setup a fake assassination if you want to call it quits now and live in anonymity. The husband wasn’t mourning and didn’t want an exhumation, because there’s no body.

[anxvariety]

I don’t think she’s dead.. it looks like she ducks down. Some group probably said you’re going to be killed now or at some point, we’ll setup a fake assassination if you want to call it quits now and live in anonymity. The husband wasn’t mourning and didn’t want an exhumation, because there’s no body.

[Author]

Posts