It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Top Iranian commanders assassinated

page: 11
53
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
As far as the "700 million year half-life" goes, we can only pray that any radioactives released have such a long half life. If you've done your homework, you'll know for fact that longer half-lives result in less radiation release, because it's spread over more time.


I think you are talking apples and oranges because the rate of decay is only on factor here, the other being the exact decay chain and nature and energy of radiation being released. Hypothetically, if one case features 18 keV beta and the other 5 MeV gamma, that would shift the balance, don't you think?

Just trying to bring extra precision into the subject.

Also - I'm not sure if you consider the scenario in which the reactor is nuked, and a significant portion of the core undergoes fission due to neutron flux. It's a case from a different category above Chernobyl (and I'm not saying that anybody plans that, actually, that's just too evil).

Certainly would be one hell of a boom.




posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu

To blame the US all Iran has to do is read ABC news. advised by American officials means trained.. these are best terrorists US tax dollars can buy. Jundullah is Uncle Sams version of Hamas.


Thanks for that tidbit. Now we know whose side of this ABC news is on, eh?

As I've said before, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It all depends on which side of the Kalashnikov you stand.



obama should order his own immediate arrest and transfer to Guantanamo Bay and the occupation of CIA HQ.. in the fight against global terrorism of course.


On what grounds?



iran has the right to defend themselves against a UN ignoring, terrorist supporting, war starting nation responsible for deadly criminal attacks on irans soil, not to mention the suffering of millions.. a nation whose leaders have threatened to "obliterate" and "bomb bomb bomb iran".. which = wipe iran off the map.


Of course they do. No one claims otherwise. They just best make sure it's a "defense", and not an "offense".

Responsible for "deadly criminal attacks on Iran's soil? Care to present your evidence for US responsibility in this attack, and grounds for the charge of "criminality"?



Surely an all options on the table retaliatory strike against the sponsors of these Jundullah terrorists would be in line with US policy. DC should brace themselves for blowback.


In bellicose posturing, as in war, all options are ALWAYS on the table. The objective is to WIN, not the fight itself.

Now, what Iran has to do is firm up just exactly WHO it views as the "sponsors" of this, and bring smoke on 'em. Right now, they're all over the map with blame, and if they attack ALL their alleged sponsors, without any evidence I might add, they will find themselves in the same predicament as the US, too much war, too many fronts.

Do you reckon they can afford to be as spread out as the US? Ain't strategy a thing of beauty?



[edit on 2009/10/19 by nenothtu]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by minkey53
 


Im curious how you think 'obliterating' them will bring 'peace at last'

no wonder the worldhates America. look at your 'future leaders'


Sad to say that poster is English mate,well he lives here-but doesnt behave as an english man!At least he isnt posting endless anti Iran blogs or sticking his two fingers up in aviator while also posting the same type of threads

US brits and the yanks have been doing business as normal in Iran for some time now,we did the same in Iraq when our SF were caught red handed in their operation to get the tribal systems fighting each other by planned car bombs on either side and letting the media point the finger at each other.

Hell of a blow for the Iranians to have there top crew taken out so easily in this manner.Hopefully they can remain level headed and not lash out even if our prints are all over it.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon

I think everyone can see how this was done - but it is colossally stupid to infer any likelihood that this was an internal issue considering the posturing of the west.


But it's not colossally stupid to deny the possibility that it was an internal issue, right? Just want to make sure I understand you clearly.



To do anything except condemn it is to condone terrorism - and condemnation of terrorism is the supposed high moral ground that the US stands on when invading the rest of the world.

The Us is the country that finances and creates most of the terrorism in the world - then they have the audacity to declare a 'war' on it?


You appear to have a bit of trouble differentiating "terrorists" from "guerrillas". No matter, I've found that folks on that side of the fence will apply any labels they think are damaging. However, labels don't change the contents, whichever side of the fence you're on.

I'll need some sources on the idea that the US finances and creates "most" of the terrorism in the world. Try to make them credible sources, please, not just emotional hearsay.



Its purely vile, as is this attack. The ongoing media and intelligence efforts to undermine the elected government of Iran are disgusting, and should be rejected and condemned by every nation and people.


Vile? Initially, Iran claimed that military officers were the target of the attack. Military personnel are the ONLY valid targets of a military operation. Later, when they thought they could get more mileage out of it, they shifted to civilians being the targets instead.

It's not all in who you BLAME, it's also in what you blame them FOR. Propaganda can be a thing of beauty, but it needs to be consistent and focused to be effective.



This is purely the effort of the globalist NWO - trying to bully and coerce Iran into its plans of mass genocide and slavery of all people. Reject the NWO, reject terrorism, and reject this vile act.


Uh oh, we have yet ANOTHER "enemy" to throw into the mix.



################################################

What I find darkly ironic - is the seeming desire to applaud the efforts of those who have bankrupted the US, seized all its property - and intend to either kill, or imprison you.

Yet you cheer them on when they are killing the only people who are resisting them? I find it ironic - it is beyond my comprehension how you can cheer on your enemies, and condemn your allies.


Please, if you would allow me to decide for myself who is my enemy and who is my ally, I'd be ever so grateful. It's about the only freedom I have left.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by nenothtu
As far as the "700 million year half-life" goes, we can only pray that any radioactives released have such a long half life. If you've done your homework, you'll know for fact that longer half-lives result in less radiation release, because it's spread over more time.


I think you are talking apples and oranges because the rate of decay is only on factor here, the other being the exact decay chain and nature and energy of radiation being released. Hypothetically, if one case features 18 keV beta and the other 5 MeV gamma, that would shift the balance, don't you think?

Just trying to bring extra precision into the subject.


That's correct. I was addressing the use of a "700 million year half life" without qualifiers, which is generally used as a scare tactic to lead people to believe that there is a "forever poisoning", without actually coming out and stating that. Another factor is the volume of fission products generated, vs. how widely they are spread out.

A generalized statement of a long half life is practically never followed up by the information that long half lives produce lower dosage rates in a given time period. The inference that the target is meant to draw is that it's FULL STRENGTH, for the entire time period.



Also - I'm not sure if you consider the scenario in which the reactor is nuked, and a significant portion of the core undergoes fission due to neutron flux. It's a case from a different category above Chernobyl (and I'm not saying that anybody plans that, actually, that's just too evil).

Certainly would be one hell of a boom.


It certainly would, but I wasn't considering the case of a NUCLEAR strike against a reactor. There are non-nuclear bombs now powerful enough to do the job, without presenting the danger of added neutron flux sending the core into a fission of it's own.

All of this assumes the reactors are already loaded, and either online or ready to go online, too. It also assumes that a reactor to produce power is a valid target, which is possible (to destroy infrastructure and leave the opposition in the dark), but not likely in the present situation. It's too big of a risk, with very little reward unless one is planning a disastrous invasion.

I believe the current thrust is to prevent a nuclear weapon from being developed. That would call for just an air strike against the production facilities.

If they're dumb enough to go with a ground invasion, I'm certain they'll get what they have coming to them for such a folly.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I don't know if any ATS members have posted this yet.

In the Iranian Air Show last September an airplane crashed. Some reporting that it was an AWAC type plane (a radar and detection plane). The last remaining Iranian AWAC plane in their air force.

www.strategypage.com...

Another cites there was a plane crash but does not mention what type of air craft.

www.columbiatribune.com...

These are not the original articles I first read about the headline last month. I believe it was from a military/aviation site.

Regardless, this airplane incident was suspect from the get-go. Iran looses their AWAC plane. An important plane in their air force for defence. Then this attack happens weeks later and takes out Generals. I don't know who exactly is responsible, but I think it was not the Iranian in a false flag attack, because of this plane accident.

1. Iran AWAC crashed.
2. Iran Generals die in attack.

I am not a military person, but this might be a good way to weaken Iran's defensives.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Everybody keeps forgetting some major things!

There are no electricity or power lines coming from this new POWER station they have built.

It's not near any major cities to POWER them.

Why was it built securely underground if they genuinely only wanted to produce nuclear power?

Why do they even need nuclear power and want to invest literally billions of dollars building this so called POWER station when they have so much oil all around them?

Can anybody see anything strange here people?

Come on, durh!

Wake up and smell the coffee Mrs Bhueller!!!!

Oh, Iran do openly and actively supply terrorists all over the world with weapons including those idiots in Gaza.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I just wanted to take a moment to point out something about the ABC News article claiming the U.S. is funding Jundallah.

The article claiming the un-named official said that the U.S. was working with Jundallah was written by Alexis Debat.

ABC, the Nixon Center, etc. were forced to fire him when his real credentials and his fake interviews came to light.

He also submitted fake interviews with Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Kofi Annan, Mayor Bloomburg, Rudy Giuliani, Alan Greenspan, etc.

I would not be using that article as a reference to anything except how hollow some media can be.


As for the other UK articles about the U.S. and Jundallah, they orignially arose from an article first posted at the... Iranian Press TV.



[edit on 10/19/09 by makeitso]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by oozyism
 

Let's not go completely stupid here as we've done on other threads.

Iran has a regular military, and then it has the Revolutionary Guards which are ideologically driven militia.

The regular military don't really care for these emotional nuts in the Revolutionary Guard. They feel that the Guards may pull a stunt that will create a bad situation that the military will have to pick up.

Iran has its own problems. Conflicting political groups, some religious fanatics, some moderates, and some who prefer a secular government.

Then you have Sunni and Shia within all those groups which won't agree.

Hardliners in the government right now control the direction of Iran, and the puppet of the moment is Ahmajackoff.

Anyone and everyone is being blamed for this group assassination. They want badly to blame it on foreigners. The truth is, it's more likely insiders.

But which ones?

Right now everyone is worried, everyone is sleeping with one eye opened, and now additional security is being dispatched to those who feel vulnerable. And that costs money. Lots of money.

Iran just got a taste of what it's been dishing out, and they don't like the taste.

Everyone suspects every other group.

I would think that there was use of "agents of purpose," but then while the program matched up the agents to the task, it is entirely possible that there were layers of co-conspirators.

IRANIAN co-conspirators.

It's beautiful.

Just beautiful.

Just be happy there is no war in consequence, Iran is a bigger man unlike the US who started two wars based on similar incident. At least Iran didn't kill more than a million people in consequence, instead acting rationally. I still don't see any wars.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Iran threatens to invade Pakistan, "crushing response" for US, UK

The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafary, Monday, Oct. 19, threatened "crushing" retaliation against the US, UK and Pakistan including the invasion of its eastern neighbor.

Tehran links all three to the suicide bombing attack in Sistan-Baluchistan Sunday, Oct. 18, which killed 42 people including seven senior Guards officers. One was Gen. Nur Ali Shoustari, Jafari's deputy, who was identified by DEBKAfile's counter-terror sources as commander of the al Qods clandestine terror bases in Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by whereismyfather

I am not a military person, but this might be a good way to weaken Iran's defensives.



Well, I was a military person, and spent several months watching Iran and Iraq duke it out. Air crashes happen all the time... especially at air shows when aircraft are being "demonstrated." I quote that in order to draw attention to it. It's a time to show what the aircraft can do... to put them through their paces. High performance aircraft do high performance stuff, other aircraft are just flown past the crowd. One group that I know of, delights in strapping JATO bottles to a C-130 to show how fast the thing can take off.

Now... I wasn't at their airshow, so I don't know what happened. But I did sit and track an Iranian jet that flew into the back of it's refueling aircraft back in the '83-'84 time frame... and witnessed an F-4 fly it's wings off. All on radar.

Just because something crashes... doesn't make it a conspiracy. Especially when it's an aged aircraft with a questionable maintenance history.


[edit on 19-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 


Wayno, I hope soon, you can grow up.

If you think that using thugs, crooks, murderers, thieves, liars, and political opponents of your foes is something new within the past three and a half millennia, then you really slept through class.

This is the way it's played.

Hopefully, your SOB's are bigger SOB's than their SOB's - or your dead.

We didn't make the rules.

We just have to play by them.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Iran is a "bigger man?"

No, they're a bunch of backward-assed 7th Century retards caught up in the modern world.

They're not "bigger." They can't do any better.

They couldn't even whip their much smaller neighbor, Iraq, over a period of years. The same Iraqi force that a small American and British force went through like crap through a goose.

As usual, wrong again. The US did not start two wars based on similar incidents. Name the American militia leaders that were killed by an opposing religious group.

Keep in mind, this entire suicide bombing thing is strictly a retarded Muslim thing. Just another in a long procession of Muslims killing other Muslims. Big deal.

Maybe if they started passing out suicide vests in the Middle East to Middle schoolers, the rest of the world could have some peace.

Amagnon, we didn't create terrorists and then war on them. Again, it's a Muslim thing. We got a Jew to buy Russian weapons from the Arabs, which we passed to the Afghanis, who used them against the Russians.

They were already fighting. So how in hell did we create something that was already in existence, and active? Your logic is counterintuitive, flawed, it's biased beyond reason, and you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Typical reasoning from this region of the world, though.

It very well CAN be an internal group of Iranians that wanted to kill these guys so bad they could taste it. All it takes is intelligence, opportunity, and means.

Intelligence could come from in-country foes, foreign intelligence contacts, counter-revolutionaries, or maybe these guys pulled it all off on their own.

To assume that a pistachio-eating rug weaver couldn't figure out how to kill his foes in-country is to assume that all Iranians are retards.

Are you suggesting that only Westerners are smart enough to pop these guys?

Oh yeah. I LOVE to see this stuff. It's like a bully finally getting an ass-whipping.

This isn't over, and if you think this is bad, just wait and see what else Iran has coming. In fact, resources are increasingly coming online in Iran, and the in-country opponents of the current government will be, shall we say, "enabled."

Recall a large number of pissed off Iranians in the streets? They didn't all just go away. They hold positions in government, and have access to some really good information.

Don't worry. It's all good. You want to be a source of trouble, you get trouble. That's the way it works.

The more fanatics that kill other fanatics, the better I like it. Yes, I was grinning when I heard the news.

Doesn't everyone like getting good news?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


In all fairness, the American Government would have us believe that we WERE attacked by suicide bombers... and it is this that led us into Afghanistan. (nevermind the fact we already had troops stationed in Bahrain prior, but that is probably best served for another thread)
I can see the point the poster was trying to make. The only difference is that we didn't have any of our top brass killed in those suicide attacks.

I think you are splitting hairs when you accuse the poster of being "wrong again."

Just trying to clarify something. Nothing much to add.

PS - There actually IS something to add. Yeah, Al Qaeda was already in some sort of form before we showed up on the scene in support of their fight in Afghanistan, but it was the CIA which legitimized their movement through the very same funding process you brilliantly outlined in an earlier post.
Like a college football team, what do you think that defeat over the Soviets did for their recruitment? If my Hogs had beaten Florida last Saturday, we probably would have secured some nice recruits in the state of Florida. As it stands, while we played them a very close game, we probably STILL secured some recruits from Florida and from elsewhere across the country as our team showed it can "play with the big boys."

"Come join the ranks of the brave Al Qaeda fighters! We repelled the communists!"

So yeah, we in essence, created the modern Al Qaeda movement by getting them a foothold in the region.

I'm sure you'll disagree, but I won't argue the point. It is a pointless pursuit.



[edit on 19-10-2009 by JayinAR]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR

..nevermind the fact we already had troops stationed in Bahrain prior, but that is probably best served for another thread...



Probably so, but it deserves addressing here since you mentioned it.

ASU Bahrain was formed as a way to provide fleet support for US interests operating in and around the Persian Gulf Area. It's utility has grown over time, but as a pre-deployment staging area, it is a poor choice. It performs a support function. Combat Logistics ships can only go so far in what they provide... fuel, stores, ammunition, etc. The nearest link at the time ASU was put together was Diego Garcia... 3000 miles away. Periodically you get mail runs from ASU via the "Desert Duck" group, and you can get Medevac services if you have someone that has to have treatment that is only available in a bona-fide hospital. But it's a support activity, not a military base in the sence of staging a combat force. Don't believe me? Grab your favorite satellite vieing program and look for yourself: 26°12'39.52"N - 50°36'9.20"E. That's Mina Sulman, the area that the ASU facilities are located... if you are lucky, you can actually find them. I've been there several times and can't definitively locate them. Not a whole lot of room to park tanks and fighters eh? Many of the ships you see on the piers in that area not US. They belong to Bahrain or other countries that have put in there. If you look around, you will note that most of the area is industrial... and that @#$@# iron pellet proccessing plant comes to mind. That thing will ruin a uniform in short order from the dust.

Why do we have forces in the area at all? Well, that's sort of a long story. In part, it started from the Tanker War. Remember that? Here's a Link if you are really interested. But the story goes back even further than that. A long time ago, Bahrain had a legal fight with Qatar over an oilfield in the Hawar Islands and they eventually won the case in British Admiralty court. Yup. BRITISH Admiralty court. That's because Britania was driving the show back then. One of the things that they did to disrupt the status quo there was to drive the pirates off of the Persian Gulf. They settled down and took up residence, later becoming the United Arab Emirates. My point is, militarily, everybody has been in the Persian Gulf doing things. Hell, to this day Bahrain still has a Shiah population... see, it used to belong to Iran / Persia before the current ruling family took it over during their running battle with the ruling family of Qatar.

This area is more convoluted than a soap opera.

Anyway... Bahrain's lack of utility as a staging area is probably best illustrated by the lead up to the 1st US / Iraq conflict. Why did we have to (temporarily) put in another base in Saudi Arabia? Simple, Bahrain is ill suited as a combat force staging area.




Edit: Spelling.



[edit on 19-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
The Iranians were building a secret nuclear reactor in a military base, in the middle of nowhere, in violation of international law. They didn't admit it until Obama called them out on it at the G20 summit on September 25. Think about it... if the Iranians wanted to build a weapon, they would need a secret facility to do it. They had a secret facility. If this reactor really were for peaceful purposes and in accordance with international law they wouldn't have kept this reactor secret, and they would have allowed immediate inspection of the site once it was uncovered.

The Iranians are refusing to allow international investigation and inspection of this secret reactor until October 25 -- a whole month later. I'm guessing they are going to use this time to remove the nuclear material from the plant so they look like they are in line with IAEA regulations.

Two days after the secret plant was found, Iran test-fired medium-range Shahab-3 ballistic missiles. This was clearly an aggressive act and a political statement. The test firing of this missiles happened the day before Yom Kippur. The missiles have enough range to reach Israel.

These actions suggest that Iran doesn't really want to cooperate with the international community, and that they really intended their secret reactor to develop weapons. Their actions show that they are not intending to cooperate.

I think that if this were orchestrated by the West, then the attack basically let them know that we are serious about nonproliferation. Iran is well known for engaging in political charades. If Iran doesn't take nonproliferation talks seriously, and refuses to come to an agreement with us, then there are consequences, like the Baluchistan bombing. The US is simply taking an aggressive stance on nonproliferation.

Essentially, we are trying to pressure Iran into sending off a sizable portion its uranium to be turned into fuel rods so that they wouldn't have enough left to create a nuclear warhead, which would make everyone relax and show conclusively that Iran really only wants to use their nuclear material for peaceful purposes.

In the October 1st talks in Geneva, Iran acted like they really wanted to export their uranium for processing, ending their own enrichment of uranium in the process. This would ease our concerns that Iran has enough uranium to make a bomb. However, after the talks, Iran's nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili denied that Iran had agreed to stop enriching their own uranium.
Source: Tehran Times


Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, has said that in the Geneva talks on Thursday, the 5+1 group did not raise the issue of uranium enrichment suspension, as has been demanded by the recent United Nations Security Council resolutions.


This is in spite of the fact that the West thought that Iran actually had agreed to the deal.
Source: Reuters


In what appeared to be a significant gesture, a senior U.S. official said Iran had agreed "in principle" to allow its uranium to be sent to Russia for further processing. It would then be returned to Iran in a form suitable for use in a reactor but not of a purity necessary for a bomb.


Basically, them reneging on negotiations shows that Iran was really trying to buy time and avoid sanctions by acting like they really wanted to cooperate, when in actuality they are just trying to stall and flex muscle.

The Baluchistan bombing was timed right before a second round of agreements in Vienna. We were basically sending them the message "you had better take these negotiations seriously this time around, or else there will be consequences."

Weakening their chain of command by killing Revolutionary Guard commanders implies that continued similar actions ultimately facilitating an internal revolution leading to a regime change could be a consequence if Iran doesn't cooperate soon. There is enough populist dissent in Iran right now that it is likely that an invasion wouldn't even be necessary to enact this.

Ultimately it is a good thing that we are letting Iran's leaders know that they can't play mind games with us forever. We are letting them know that there is a point in which we consider negotiations to have failed, and after that point we will do what it takes to ensure that no nuclear weapons are detonated in the region.

And good riddance to that.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Albastion]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by RoofMonkey
 


Nice that you know that the history of Bahrain as it pertains to US military involvement.
Doesn't further anything to the point that US troops were called up to go to Bahrain just weeks prior to 9-11.
Units that were NOT on revolving duty in the region.
Out of the blue troop deployments to an island just off the coast of Afghanistan just prior to 9-11.

Could it have had anything to do with the fact that we KNOW the US had planned to invade Afghanistan prior to 9-11?
Probably.

Nice long-winded post providing nothing of actual value to the point. To an outside observer, that would look like a perfect counter to something that was mentioned that was totally off-topic. The troops deployed to the region out of cycle were ARMY troops.

But that is all I will say on the matter.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by RoofMonkey
 


Nice long-winded post providing nothing of actual value to the point. To an outside observer, that would look like a perfect counter to something that was mentioned that was totally off-topic. The troops deployed to the region out of cycle were ARMY troops.


And a nice connection of unrelated factoids. People are rolling in and out of Bahrain all the time. It's a support activity. That's what they do.


What you have pointed out is tantamount to odd fact that a plane landed at LaGuardia.

In cace you haven't noticed. The US military has been on a "Jointness" kick for oh... 20+ years now.




Joint Service Achievement Medal: Authorized by the Secretary of Defense, August 3, 1983.

b. The JSAM shall be awarded only to members of the Armed Forces of the United States below the grade of O-6 who, after August 3, 1983, distinguished themselves by outstanding performance of duty and meritorious achievement.


This is just one of several awards that are granted related to inter service activity.

So.. if they were US Army, so what? USCG?, USMC?, USAF? So what?








[edit on 19-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by RoofMonkey
 


Off topic.
I'll send a U2U shortly. Or we can start another thread.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 

This group that "happened" to be going to Bahrain? That's like assuming we're attacking Britain because we have our subs coming and going all the time.

And we "legitimized" Al-Queda? By funding any and all Afghanis who were fighting the Soviets?

Just how do you figure?

We funded an effort that bled the Soviets white. It was a simple payback for them helping the North Vietnamese.

The war went on and on, and the Soviets were slaughtering the Afghanis because of the Soviet air support.

That lasted right up until we supplied Stingers. Started smoking Soviet fixed and rotary wing aircraft left and right.

That's when the Afghanis surged on the Soviet forces.

And somehow in this process, we "legitimized" Al-Queda? No more than any other group fighting the Soviets.

We didn't legitimize the "Northern Alliance" forces. So who in Hades came up with the assumption that we legitimized Al-Queda? Some Bush-hater?



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join