I find it interesting that the US might have gained control of another countries WMD - and nobody seems interested about it - strange to say the least

Phoenix, we're closer to ol' Purvais M. than most can imagine. And not necessarily Pakistan in general. Remember, it was the CIA trained, Pakistani intel apparatus (ISI) that funneled $100,000 to Mohammad Atta in the weeks leading up to 9-11.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Phoenix, we're closer to ol' Purvais M. than most can imagine. And not necessarily Pakistan in general. Remember, it was the CIA trained, Pakistani intel apparatus (ISI) that funneled $100,000 to Mohammad Atta in the weeks leading up to 9-11.

I certainly agree the ISI is rife with Jihad sympathisers that definitely are working against the interest of both Pakistan and US policy for many years. Correct me if I'm wrong in believing that the original support and training was to counter the Soviet Unions invasion of Afganistan and to help the muhadajeen put up a fight.

20/20 hindsight does show that we made a deal with the devil to accomplish a goal that needed doing in the political climate of the day unfortunatly Pakistans nuclear build-up was winked at to maintain cooperation in the waning days of the cold war.

The muhadajeen's goal of ending all influence by infidel western nations was ignored to our peril by the larger issue of containing the Soviets and preventing their move on the middle east which was the strategic danger at the time.

In making policy to fight the cold war many examples of shortsighted decisions can be found that we are now haunted by including Iraq and Saddams long run in power, Pakistans proliferation and backdoor support of terrorist
groups, Afganistans muhadajeen morphing into a widespread terror oganization etc. etc. etc.

What I am skeptical about is jumping to the conclusion that because we backed these countries/groups, using them as proxies to grind down and defeat the Soviets - how that leads to a belief that a conspiracy on the part of the US existed to attack itself. I am leaning more to the theory that policy makers used these entities to achieve that days goal without giving the future much thought or if they did it was a case of dealing with the larger problem first and picking up the pieces later - only they forgot to pick up those pieces in the euphoric 90s when everyone only wanted to give and recieve nothing but good news that kept their stock portfolios up.

The pawns in that chess game between the US and USSR got tired of being pawns once the players left the table, we're dealing with the results today - yes stupidity, greed and deriliction of duty all played their part - conspiracy? I'm not there yet.

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Phoenix, we're closer to ol' Purvais M. than most can imagine. And not necessarily Pakistan in general. Remember, it was the CIA trained, Pakistani intel apparatus (ISI) that funneled $100,000 to Mohammad Atta in the weeks leading up to 9-11.

I certainly agree the ISI is rife with Jihad sympathisers that definitely are working against the interest of both Pakistan and US policy for many years. Correct me if I'm wrong in believing that the original support and training was to counter the Soviet Unions invasion of Afganistan and to help the muhadajeen put up a fight.

correct.

20/20 hindsight does show that we made a deal with the devil to accomplish a goal that needed doing in the political climate of the day unfortunatly Pakistans nuclear build-up was winked at to maintain cooperation in the waning days of the cold war.

They are still under the same control and are still being used. This time, though, they're role is as our external enemy e.g. "al Qaeda". We had to have one to justify the continued expansion/budget increases in our already out of control military apparatus. REad Bzrzinski's "The Grand Chessboard." We must have that external enemy.

The muhadajeen's goal of ending all influence by infidel western nations was ignored to our peril by the larger issue of containing the Soviets and preventing their move on the middle east which was the strategic danger at the time.

This is the game played by the power elites. Hence, the grand chessboard. Things are not as they seem.

In making policy to fight the cold war many examples of shortsighted decisions can be found that we are now haunted by including Iraq and Saddams long run in power,

The CIA helped Saddam into power. Once they used him up like a dirty tampon, they merely threw him away. Same shyte, different puppet ruler.

Pakistans proliferation and backdoor support of terrorist
groups, Afganistans muhadajeen morphing into a widespread terror oganization etc. etc. etc.

That is all carefully crafted, media-ingrained fiction. The real terrorists are those who control the money. (CIA, ISI). Those fools that believe themselves to be "al Qaeda are little pawns in a deadly game. They don't even understand. They buy into that "I'm gonna be a martyr BS." It's pretty sad. Our soldiers are duped, as well.

What I am skeptical about is jumping to the conclusion that because we backed these countries/groups, using them as proxies to grind down and defeat the Soviets - how that leads to a belief that a conspiracy on the part of the US existed to attack itself. I am leaning more to the theory that policy makers used these entities to achieve that days goal without giving the future much thought or if they did it was a case of dealing with the larger problem first and picking up the pieces later - only they forgot to pick up those pieces in the euphoric 90s when everyone only wanted to give and recieve nothing but good news that kept their stock portfolios up.

The masters of war have one agenda: total global dominance. They do not care about our country or Britain or Iraq or any other country. It's all about complete control and controlling the world's remaining resources.

The pawns in that chess game between the US and USSR got tired of being pawns once the players left the table, we're dealing with the results today - yes stupidity, greed and deriliction of duty all played their part - conspiracy? I'm not there yet.

Keep searching. The pieces to the puzzle are there. But it takes time to fit them all together.

ummm, the U.S. in charge of another countries WMD... kinda makes you wonder if " the powers that be" would use those weapons against the U.S. to get something started ??????

I find it odd that some people do not want guns taken away from people but want the U.S. to have a monopoly on WMD.

Last time I checked, we had millions of barrels of Napalm (sp).

Originally posted by elevatedone
ummm, the U.S. in charge of another countries WMD... kinda makes you wonder if " the powers that be" would use those weapons against the U.S. to get something started ??????

Some say the U.S. is being controlled by another nation.