Originally posted by FabianFnasTrue, though he's technically speaking not a dictator. But you knew that. 🙂
Don't forget Usama bin Ladin.
Without training him for the Afganistani war against Sovjet and the kind donation of Stingers and other military weapons, he wouldn't be the strong al-Kaida leader he was (is?).
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou've obviously never spoken with any of the US mil or CIA that were in Afghanistan in the 80's.
Don't forget Usama bin Ladin.
Without training him for the Afganistani war against Sovjet and the kind donation of Stingers and other military weapons, he wouldn't be the strong al-Kaida leader he was (is?).
It's a convenient assertion, but it can't be backed up because it isn't true.
Originally posted by MerkCIA didn't train him, or he would still be a successful leader of Al'Qaida
You've obvious never spoken with any of the US mil or CIA that were in Afghanistan in the 80's.
It's a convenient assertion, but it can't vbe backed up because it isn't true.
without this training?
Originally posted by MerkThe Afganistanis had Stingers, and bin Ladin was their leader. One plus one is two.
You've obviously never spoken with any of the US mil or CIA that were in Afghanistan in the 80's.
It's a convenient assertion, but it can't be backed up because it isn't true.
I say that Aphagistanis defence was sponsored by US funds. True or false?
Originally posted by JigtieWithout a doubt tactics were taught to many and they tught it to many others, so whether he got trained directly prolly doesn't matter much.
CIA didn't train him, or he would still be a successful leader of Al'Qaida
without this training?
A lot of guys were trained that there's no record of and there's records of training guys who never got any training. At least that's my understanding of it, but that's not what matters.
The part that matters is whether or not he'd be who is today. He was already a sociopath and always looking for the bigger and better thing to lead, so it's impossible to make the claim either way.
One thing is for certain, he wasn't going to be an Everyday Joe no matter what.
Originally posted by no1marauder"Bin Ladin's efforts in Afghanistan, along with the rest of the mujahaddin movement there, were supported by the United States through Pakistani Interservice Intelligence, most vigorously from 1986 to 1989. In this period, the United States partnered with Saudi Arabia in providing financial support for the resistance in Afghanistan totaling $500 million per year. Weapons were sold at cut rates to the mujahaddin and by 1987 the US facilitated the importation of an estimated 65,000 tons of weapons according to a former CIA official. Also, Stinger man portable anti-aircraft missiles were provided to the mujahaddin to destroy Soviet aircraft. The British Special Air Service provided training for weapons training with this system and others throughout the conflict. All US support was abruptly ended in 1989 after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. Most of this support went to native Afghan fighters rather than Bin Ladin and his ilk."
No, Bin Laden was not the leader of the Afghan Resistance.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ubl.htm
Originally posted by FabianFnasThis article doesn't back your assertion one bit.
"Bin Ladin's efforts in Afghanistan, along with the rest of the mujahaddin movement there, were supported by the United States through Pakistani Interservice Intelligence, most vigorously from 1986 to 1989. In this period, the United States partnered with Saudi Arabia in providing financial support for the resistance in Afghanistan totaling $500 million p ...[text shortened]... her than Bin Ladin and his ilk."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ubl.htm
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat article does not support your claim that Bin Laden was the leader of the Afghan Resistance. The paragraph immediately preceding the one you have quoted (which doesn't say that Bin Laden's organization ever got direct support from the US) is more relevant:
"Bin Ladin's efforts in Afghanistan, along with the rest of the mujahaddin movement there, were supported by the United States through Pakistani Interservice Intelligence, most vigorously from 1986 to 1989. In this period, the United States partnered with Saudi Arabia in providing financial support for the resistance in Afghanistan totaling $500 million p ...[text shortened]... her than Bin Ladin and his ilk."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ubl.htm
Bin Ladin had no experience in guerilla warfare, but he quickly realized that he could make use of his wealth and his connections with the Saudi royal family to support the resistance effort. He joined forces with an Islamist Palestinian, Abdallah Azzam, to form a new group of mujaheddin. While Bin Ladin would remain a relatively minor player in the Afghan war and Islamic militancy in general, Azzam was already centrally important in adding to radical Islamic theory. Specifically, Azzam emphasized that waging jihad against the Soviets was a personal duty for all Muslims. Azzam would be in charge of the manpower, while Bin Ladin would arrange for their transportation and supply. In order to manage the large amount of money needed for such an operation, Bin Ladin founded the Islamic Salvation Foundation and assisted Azzam with establishing the Mekhtab Ah-Khidemat Al-Mujahideen (MAK), which was also known as the Office of Services of the Mujahaddin. This agency would become the principal recruiting agent for so called Arab Afghans, non-Afghan Islamist fighters in Afghanistan. MAK had offices all over the world and would eventually recruit mujahaddin from over 35 countries. Bin Ladin worked to build infrastructure within Afghanistan to further the mujahaddin movement. Beyond simple support, he also fought personally in several skirmishes with Soviet troops in a leadership capacity.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI repeat my first posting in this thread. I think that posting plus the quote from the link, says it all.
Don't forget Usama bin Ladin.
Without training him for the Afganistani war against Sovjet and the kind donation of Stingers and other military weapons, he wouldn't be the strong al-Kaida leader he was (is?).
But as Jigtie responded, if he was a dictator or not is a technical matter. But, for sure, he wasn't a fan of democracy. I wouldn't argue against him if I was a member of his group. 🙂
Originally posted by FabianFnasWell, then if you don't require facts to believe in your own assertions, I'd say you just go on believin'.
I repeat my first posting in this thread. I think that posting plus the quote from the link, says it all.
But as Jigtie responded, if he was a dictator or not is a technical matter. But, for sure, he wasn't a fan of democracy. I wouldn't argue against him if I was a member of his group. 🙂
Originally posted by mbakuninA lot of presumptions going on as far as being "installed by the US."
hugo banzer, bolivia
fulgencio batista, cuba
humberto branco, brazil
Ngo Dinh Diem, South Vietnam
Maximiliano Martinez, el Salvador
Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire
the shah of Iran
George Papadopoulos, Greece
Augusto Pinochet, Chile
Sitiveni Rabuka, Fiji
Somoza Sr. and Jr., Nicaragua
Suharto, Indonesia
Rafael Trujillo, Dominican ...[text shortened]... the us. many more were able to remain in power thanks to military and financial aid from the us.
To be sure, we engaged and assisted many of those listed, including Saddam Hussein.
Originally posted by generalissimowhat if our American government orchestrated the 911 attacks in order to merit "justified reason" to wage war with "unfinished business" from George Herbert Walker Bush's term in office? (namely; Saddam)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123197784199983615.html?mod=yahoo_buzz
I also think its worth pointing out that since Bush waged the war on terror, the terrorists haven't attacked America.
(not to mention that war destabilizes the economic state of all nations involved; but most detrimentally effects the nation in which the war takes place... if the price of oil went up due to reduced supply; those in the oil business [like the Bush family; and many other former CIA agents; like George Herbert Walker Bush - former head of the CIA - prior to his role as VP in which he had more influence than the puppet Pres. Ronald Reagan] would make more money due to controlling what has become a limited supply... so it may all come down to wealth and greed)
it would be equally easy to orchestrate a "prevention" of further terrorist attacks in order to feign success...
like chess; there are many moves in life that are meant to deviate one's attention...
sadly; the average level of awareness for most is not nearly acute enough to make such an observation...
further; let me state that this is a "possible perspective" of past events... in no way am i discrediting the tragedy that occurred; or invalidating the pain (and fear) felt by many...
i'm simply offering another way to look at things; and encouraging the public to ask questions and to not settle for what the government claims is the "truth"...
finally; bear in mind that "terrorism" is a government's effort to establish control over its people (or other nation's people) through the mechanism of fear... such control could take the shape of rallying support for a nation's decision to wage war (an army needs conscripts)...
pacifism is the only means of dissolving fear; by removing the threat of aggression...
aggression faced with aggression only leads to more aggression; and retaliation (in any form) is still aggression...
namaste