Bhutto assassination: CIA plot?

[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.

[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

[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]

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.

[Author]

Posts