Originally posted by InsideYourMind
The thing is, i don't believe or disbelieve in anything. I look at what makes sense and make my own decisions. I do not believe anything i am told in
the same way that you may.
Back in the day, there was no internet. In those days before the internet, there was something known as "ground truth", which was the truth as it
existed on the ground, independent of reports received and independent of internet pop culture. When reports came in, it required someone to go check
them out on the ground. Unless you were there, or know someone who was, you are operating on "belief", regardless.
Whether you choose to believe in a wiki page or what I say on the internet, it's STILL on the internet, not "ground truth". It is belief.
Tell me you _have_ heard of the mujahid movement.
I'm very familiar with "the mujahid movement". You are confusing "pan-jihadism" with a jihad to liberate a specific place when you confuse al-Qaida
with the Afghan muj of the Soviet War era. They are in no way the same thing. One is offensive in nature, along the lines of a conquest, and the other
is defensive in nature, geared towards liberation of a specific homeland - in this case Afghanistan.
Did you bother with reading your own link, or just find it somewhere and post it? I ask because there is no "Islamic_mujahid_movement" section there.
That link is a redirect from a "Islamic_mujahid_movement" wiki page, which exists only to redirect to the page it gives, on "Jihadism", and had you
read that page, you would know the difference.
Quoted from the above link:
Experts debate whether or not the al-Qaeda attacks were blowback from the American CIA's "Operation Cyclone" program to help the Afghan
mujahideen. Robin Cook, British Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001, has written that al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were "a product of a monumental
miscalculation by western security agencies", and that "Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of
mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."
You evidently don't speak Arabic, and so fall for whatever is told. Al-Quaida doesn't mean "the computer database". It means "the base", i.e. a base
of operations, a camp.
It doesn't matter what name you give them, a jihad is a jihad. Put it how you like... but the fact is, CIA funded the islamic mujahideen movement,
typically radicals armed with weapons. Which also fits the description of western media's view of a "terrorist".
"Jihad" has a variety of meanings. "Jihad" is not necessarily "jihad" as you understand it. That's why there was such confusion over the term right
after the war started. At it's most basic, "jihad" means "struggle". What form that takes or what it is directed against has many permutations from
spiritual to revolutionary.
It takes more than mere "radicals with weapons" to make a terrorist. Your definition is flawed, contrived,and cherry-picked to support an
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims
That's a pretty wide open definition, as evidently most are these days. Words apparently don't mean what they say any more. That covers everything
from a school yard bully to a nuclear exchange - and everything in between, including a mere armed robbery. Congrats, you have bought into your
government's propaganda. Everyone is a "terrorist".
The USA backed the mujahideen with training and ammunitions. Was this also a pursuit for political purposes using violence and intimidation towards
the russians? I don't think i need to answer that question.
Yes, we did. The answer to your question of whether it was pursuit of a political purpose is probably
yes. The same answer covers the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan, the Cuban and Soviet involvement in Nicaragua, the NATO defense of the Fulda Gap, and ANY other activity in which people
carry guns in the face of any other people. It covers World War II, World War I, and all war-like actions going back to ancient Sumeria, and onward
into the future. According to your definition, ALL war is "terrorism", defensive or not.
According to your definition, OWS is terrorism - it has political goals, and has been anything but "peaceful" as it was advertised.
Voting is terrorism. It used the threat of a vote to achieve political ends.
Now at least give me a link to some credible source saying "this isn't true"
Maybe you just do not want to accept that it probably is true.
You want me to "prove" a negative?
OK, I'll give it a shot. You want a "credible source" saying that it ISN'T true, and you will accept that as proof?
Sure thing. Your OWN link: Alleged CIA involvement in Afghan Muj from the same
A variety of sources—CNN journalist Peter Bergen, Pakistani ISI Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, and CIA operatives involved in the Afghan program, such
as Vincent Cannistraro—deny that the CIA or other American officials had contact with the foreign mujahideen or Bin Laden, let alone armed, trained,
coached or indoctrinated them.
This runs counter to the account of Milton Bearden, the CIA Field Officer for Afghanistan from 1985 to 1989, who distinctly recalls the unease he used
to feel when meeting the Jihadi fighters: "The only times that I ran into any real trouble in Afghanistan was when I ran into 'these guys' – You
know there'd be kind of a 'moment' or two that would look a little bit like the bar scene in Star Wars, ya know. Each group kinda jockeying around and
finally somebody has to diffuse [sic] the situation."
But Bergen and others argue that there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land since there
were a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight; that foreign mujahideen themselves had no need for American funds since they received
several hundred million dollars a year from non-American, Muslim sources; that Americans could not have trained mujahideen because Pakistani officials
would not allow more than a handful of them to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan; and that the Afghan Arabs were almost invariably militant
Islamists reflexively hostile to Westerners whether or not the Westerners were helping the Muslim Afghans.
According to Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with bin Laden in 1997, the idea that "the CIA funded bin Laden or
trained bin Laden ...[is] a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. ... Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating
secretly and independently. ... The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to
really start tracking him." But as Bergen himself admitted, in one "strange incident" the CIA did appear to give visa help to
mujahideen-recruiter Omar Abdel-Rahman.
That was immediately below the little snippet you quoted above as "support", in the same article, so I quote it as "refutation". Therefore, it carries
every bit as much weight, and there's a lot more of it.
You are far from the truth by simply stating, "not true".
As well, you are far from the truth by simply stating "was so! ".
edit on 2011/12/12 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)