White House : Taliban isn't US enemy

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
We can pretend all day the Taliban "didn't exist" until 1993, but the seeds for their formation were sown in the American imperialism and interventionism of the 80's and 90's.


Who's pretending here? You continue to post links and articles that conflict with what you are saying and do NOT support your arguments. Chief among them is that the "Taliban met with Reagan and or Bush Sr"

Case in point this bit here....



Among those Reagan and Bush provided material aid to:
Profile: Gulbuddin Hekmatyar


Former mujahideen leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is one of the most controversial figures in modern Afghan history.

A former prime minister, he is remembered chiefly for his role in the bloody civil war of the 1990s.

Mr Hekmatyar is currently in a tenuous alliance with the Taliban, although both sides remain suspicious of each other.

In 2003, the US state department designated him as a terrorist, accusing him of taking part in and supporting attacks by al-Qaeda and the Taliban.


I'll keep that up just to show you that nowhere does it say Reagan and Bush Sr supported them

Then it goes on to say the bloody civil war in the 90s




posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
We can pretend all day the Taliban "didn't exist" until 1993, but the seeds for their formation were sown in the American imperialism and interventionism of the 80's and 90's.


The "seeds" for US formation were sewn in the Code of Hammurabbi. Does that mean Americans are REALLY Babylonians?



Among those Reagan and Bush provided material aid to:
Profile: Gulbuddin Hekmatyar

...

Mr Hekmatyar is currently in a tenuous alliance with the Taliban, although both sides remain suspicious of each other.

...


Note the phrase "tenuous alliance" and the phrase "suspicious of each other". Know why that is? it's because Hekmatyar is liable to jump the fence to the other side again at any time. He's not a stable ally to anyone but himself.

The US knows that, and has washed it's hands of him. The Taliban knows that, and is watching his every move for signs of duplicity.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Perhaps what they mean is..The Taliban haven't targeted America's homeland, and probably have no interest in doing so. They're fighting us because they feel we invaded their homeland. If the roles reversed and the Chinese had invaded America, would the people here not fight to repel them?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 

You can say or believe whatever youd like.

Its a fact that Osama was an asset of the CIA and that they helped recruit fighters to repel the Russians in Afghanistan. To pretend that the US was/is not intimate with Al-Qaeda or Al-CIAeda is laughable.

The US did it all, from recruitment to "education". Its well know that the US funded "religious schools" in Pakistan and Afghanistan, i.e. Madrassas, radicalized to glorify the concept of religious war. They also went so far as to provide text books which promoted these violent concepts.

Bush was so proud of the new textbooks that US was delivering saying that:


These textbooks will teach tolerance and respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry

www.foxnews.com...

What he failed to mention is that this doctrine of hate and violence was courtesy of the US:


In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum.

Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code.

www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Seems like they want to pull out of Afghanistan.

That way, they can say they won by defeating Al Qaida, and re-brainwash people into thinking the Taliban are now our allies.

They could well have cut a deal with the Taliban. You'll know they have when they start referring to them as "rebels".



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


For me, it is not a matter of belief if it is a matter of historical fact, Al-qa’ida and its leader Osama Bin Laden have never had any meaningful link with the CIA. It is absolute fact that Al-Qa’ida was never puppet to the CIA or any other intelligence agency. I don’t want to get drawn into the wider debate and argue this with you for three reasons, firstly I don’t have the time to write a huge post to explain all of these reasons as it would have to do to explain it to you it would probably take a series of threads to do so. Secondly I am currently working on a massive thread that debunks the idea that Bin Laden was ever an agent of the CIA however this is taking some time as I have other academic work to be working on and it also requires me to read countless books and cross check facts. As for the third reason it is really rather simple, for many on ATS Bin Laden will always be regarded as an agent of the CIA because otherwise the mother off all conspiracies comes crashing down. If Bin Laden did exist as he did then it stands to reason that his organisation was responsible for the attacks of 9/11, so it wasn’t a false flag and the NOW were not behind it. For that reason alone many on ATS will always hold onto this fictitious belief that Bin Laden was CIA because if this were to be proven otherwise it would drastically change their perception of the world, something many would struggle with.

The evidence is overwhelming, Jason Burke, Abdel Bari Atwan, Steven Croll, Lawrence Wright, Michael Scheuer, and many many other prolific writers on the phenomenon of Al-Qa’ida all agree, Bin Laden was never an agent of the CIA. Now if you want to go and listen to idiots like Alex Jones, cherry pick history, misinterpret quotes form politicians, believe half the rubbish in the MSN about Al-Qa’ida and then buy into fake documents and the lies of disenfranchised ex government officials out to make a name for themselves go for it. But if that is where you are getting your information from, all you’re going to get is ignorance and more ignorance.

Please go read a book on Al-Qa’ida that isn’t full or pointless revisionist history and stop believing the stuff you’re reading on the internet.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 

You can say or believe whatever youd like.

Its a fact that Osama was an asset of the CIA


I get so tired of telling people "No, he was NOT" that I'm going to change up this time and say that's not just a regular lie, it's a DAMN lie.



and that they helped recruit fighters to repel the Russians in Afghanistan.


Name some. Otherwise, THAT is a damn lie, too. The fact is, foreign muj were pouring into the country from all over the muslim world. No "recruitment" was necessary.



To pretend that the US was/is not intimate with Al-Qaeda or Al-CIAeda is laughable.


No one is "pretending" anything. I'm flat out stating it's a god damned lie.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Dude I agree with everything you are saying but I just want to point out just so we are clear Clinton only started lobbing the missiles after the 1998 bombings, Al-Qa’ida struck first (ok you can probably argue about their justification but you know what I mean). He attacked a chemical plant in Sudan and two camps in Afghanistan. One account I read by a journalist who interviewed Bin Laden quoted him as saying words along the lines of “haha is that the best they can do”.

It is interesting though, those attacks show that the war between America and Al’Qa’ida has had been going on years before 9/11 and years before the conspiracies about A’Qa’ida being a CIA stooge where even dreamed of.

Sometime people on ATS like to cherry pick, twist and forget history in order to justify their absurd theories. Its nice to see a member who doesn’t forget.
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


So there was no Operation Cyclone, Osama Bin Laden, Tim Osman, was not a CIA asset and the US government has nothing to do with Osama or Al-CIAeda.

Well, Im sorry, but you still havent convinced me.

May I suggest you increase the usage of the word "damn" and add some more exclamation points.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by nenothtu
 


So there was no Operation Cyclone,


Of course there was. I didn't say otherwise. I didn't address Operation Cyclone at all.



Osama Bin Laden, Tim Osman, was not a CIA asset and the US government has nothing to do with Osama or Al-CIAeda.


Osama bin Laden is not "Tim Osman", he was Osama bin Laden. OBL was not a CIA asset. The US government did have something to do with OBL - we chucked bombs at him in response to his tossing bombs at us. We never trained nor supported either him or AQ.

There is no such thing as "Al-CIAeda", so of course the US government could not have ever had anything to do with that which never was. You seem to have some problems with your spelling there. I suggest remedial classes.



Well, Im sorry, but you still havent convinced me.


You aren't the one(s) I'm trying to convince. You are a lost cause, adrift in a fantasy you seem unable to awaken from. I put out the information for readers, those who don't fear to check it out for themselves, and find the truth of the matter, using information gathering and logic - two tools which I note you are unacquainted with.



May I suggest you increase the usage of the word "damn" and add some more exclamation points.


"Damn" did not stand alone. the full phrase was "damn LIE". It was, it still is, and ever shall remain so.

I'm just waiting for you to pull that alleged "CIA memo" out of your fourth point of contact so I can shred it for you.



edit on 2011/12/23 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Its not a misspelling at all. Al-CIAeda is a reference to our CIA working with Osama Bin Laden, funding, naming and recruiting the organization known as Al-Qaeda.

Is that clear enough or are you still confused?

edit on 23-12-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Yes there was an Operation cyclone however it is perhaps the most misunderstood part of the history of Al-Qa’ida (as it should be spelt, or if you want to be really pedantic Al-Qa’ida Al Askariya, the military base which was formed at a meeting in 1988 in one of Bin Laden’s homes somewhere near Kandahar, the minutes of which ended up in Bosnia). Basically as part of the deal America could not become actively involved in the Soviet Jihad taking a very hand off approach and almost exclusively dealt with the Afghan Mujahedeen rather than the Arab Mujahedeen which was the responsibility of the Sauids. Much more to it than all of that but in a nut shell that sums it up, read Steve Coll’s Ghost wars to gain a further understanding and stop reading the revisionist crap you find on the net.

Tim Osman has been debunked.

You need to understand that some people on ATS know allot more about this stuff than you do and you really should start listening to them.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Its not a misspelling at all. Al-CIAeda is a reference to our CIA working with Osama Bin Laden, funding, naming and recruiting the organization known as Al-Qaeda.

Is that clear enough or are you still confused?

edit on 23-12-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)


Ah. I see. It's not a misspelling - it's an intentionally wrongful spelling borne of fantasy, based upon events which never occurred except in diseased minds, constructed with intent to mislead and misinform - a construct also known as "propaganda".

Got it.




edit on 2011/12/24 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

I'm going to clue you in on a little secret.

The US government hides its activities and get this, sometimes they even lie.

Crazy I know, who woulda thunk it?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 

Sure thing.

Nothing makes more sense than taking the word of an anonymous stooge on a website about conspiracy theories.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Please don’t take my word for it go and actually read a book on the history of Al-Qa’ida and it will become quite apparent to you very quickly that you are wrong.

I think resorting to calling me a “stooge” proves that you have already lost the debate.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by nenothtu
 

I'm going to clue you in on a little secret.

The US government hides its activities and get this, sometimes they even lie.

Crazy I know, who woulda thunk it?



I DO hope you're not trying to present mere accusations as "proof". Try that in court some day and see how far it takes you.

Here's how it works: you make "accusations" or "allegations" of some sort of wrongdoing.

THEN you offer evidence to support those accusations or allegations.

It looks like what you are doing here is trying to verify one allegation by making another.

That's just not how it works.

Bring some evidence of your allegations.

ETA: bonus question: Do you know what they call allegations based solely upon unsubstantiated rumor, and completely devoid of any supporting evidence, put forward in a conversation with intent to slyly influence popular thought? Yes, there is an actual name for that. Think hard, I'm sure it will come to you.

edit on 2011/12/24 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 

Sure thing.

Nothing makes more sense than taking the word of an anonymous stooge on a website about conspiracy theories.



I'm trying to determine just why your particular "anonymous stoogery" is superior to any other "anonymous stoogery", particularly when you can't seem to find any evidence to support your allegations.

You do realize that I'm going to have to send this computer in for a cleaning after all the irony you just dripped into it with that post, right?

Where do I send the bill for that?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Its not a misspelling at all. Al-CIAeda is a reference to our CIA working with Osama Bin Laden, funding, naming and recruiting the organization known as Al-Qaeda.

Is that clear enough or are you still confused?

edit on 23-12-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)


Ah. I see. It's not a misspelling - it's an intentionally wrongful spelling borne of fantasy, based upon events which never occurred except in diseased minds, constructed with intent to mislead and misinform - a construct also known as "propaganda".

Got it.




edit on 2011/12/24 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


CIAnenothtu?



Its official!



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

CIAnenothtu?



Its official!



I much prefer nenoCIAthtu. It has a high point in the middle for aesthetic balance, and it very clearly shows who is the boss between those two! First billing says it all!

Besides, when you say it out loud - if you can avoid wrapping your tongue around you eye tooth and getting tongue-tied - it sound strikingly similar to "Nosferatu".

*cackles evilly while searching for a file to sharpen his teeth with*




edit on 2011/12/24 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join