FRIHOST • FORUMS • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Children of Jihad

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News
 


Billy Hill
Here's a disturbing video. Looks like a children's sing-along song. My kids like sing-along songs like KidzBop and Singstar Pop. This is not like that...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqHUdwePfbM

youtube wrote:
From Hamas TV channel, Al Aqsa TV, and published by Palestinian Media Watch. The four-year-old daughter of female suicide bomber singing to her dead mother and vowing to follow in her footsteps.
palavra
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-53482.html&highlight=amish+school

Quote:
Community Was Punished by an Angry God


are those kids also need a punishment?

or will you bring democracy to their country also?
horseatingweeds
palavra wrote:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-53482.html&highlight=amish+school

Quote:
Community Was Punished by an Angry God


are those kids also need a punishment?

or will you bring democracy to their country also?


LOL Laughing

You sure grab as some arbitrary crap in a very random manner palavra....
singh.gurjeet
Sad... very sad...

If you see the links below that youtube video, yu will see a news article, according to which the woman was anyway destined to die, she had cheated on her husband.... Maybe thats why she opted for this....
Billy Hill
horseatingweeds wrote:
palavra wrote:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-53482.html&highlight=amish+school

Quote:
Community Was Punished by an Angry God


are those kids also need a punishment?

or will you bring democracy to their country also?


LOL Laughing

You sure grab as some arbitrary crap in a very random manner palavra....


Yeah, no kidding. He's really grasping at straws here to try to make it look like (Radical) Islam is not the only religion doing this crap on such a wide scale.

S3nd K3ys wrote:

This just goes to show that there are radicals on both sides. Of course, these freaks aren't blowing babies up or anything, and they've been instantly seperated from the main stream christians and denounced six ways from Sunday.


This is NOT acceptable behavior in modern society, Palavra, and never will be, no matter how many times you try to justify it for Islam.

(Radical) Islam is a world wide push for Shria Law, as witnessed by the events of (Radical) Muslims by the tens or hundreds of thousands worldwide.
jwellsy
Maybe we should embrace this kind of activity and support the religeous dogma.
In fact there should be national holidays to show support.
There could be parades and big parties in the park.
where they can all gather and
blow each other up.

Have contests to see who can blow the biggest hole in the ground.
Or who can throw a body part the farthest.

If they are not going to stop it,
lets encourage it.
Billy Hill
jwellsy wrote:
Maybe we should embrace this kind of activity and support the religeous dogma.
In fact there should be national holidays to show support.
There could be parades and big parties in the park.
where they can all gather and
blow each other up.

Have contests to see who can blow the biggest hole in the ground.
Or who can throw a body part the farthest.

If they are not going to stop it,
lets encourage it.


:clapping:

National Blow Yourself and Your Children to Hell Day. Or should we make it a week long event? Laughing Laughing Laughing
horseatingweeds
jwellsy wrote:
Maybe we should embrace this kind of activity and support the religeous dogma.
In fact there should be national holidays to show support.
There could be parades and big parties in the park.
where they can all gather and
blow each other up.

Have contests to see who can blow the biggest hole in the ground.
Or who can throw a body part the farthest.

If they are not going to stop it,
lets encourage it.


I think that's one of the problems. War is like the national sport of many of the Muslim countries. It been that way for 1500 years. Look at the Afghans. They fought the British through the 19th century, having all kinds of fun. Had a rest. Then got to fight the Soviets. Of course, the Soviets upped the anti, leveling villages and all that, but the tribes still fought them and each other until the Soviets gave up.

Now, they're still fighting each other, although Afghanistan has made a lot of progress in the past 50 years and seems to be getting over this type of thing, modernizing and so on. They're still really good at killing Al Qeada though.
jwellsy
There's already extreame sports oplympics.
How about starting the official Extreamists Olympics.

Diving would have to allow cannonball dives.

Fencing would be without pads.

Track and field events would have an ariel scoring component.

Sudden death overtimes, would be just that.

JJ Walker would be a DYNO-MITE commentator.
palavra
horseatingweeds wrote:

I think that's one of the problems. War is like the national sport of many of the Muslim countries. It been that way for 1500 years. Look at the Afghans. They fought the British through the 19th century, having all kinds of fun. Had a rest. Then got to fight the Soviets. Of course, the Soviets upped the anti, leveling villages and all that, but the tribes still fought them and each other until the Soviets gave up.

Now, they're still fighting each other, although Afghanistan has made a lot of progress in the past 50 years and seems to be getting over this type of thing, modernizing and so on. They're still really good at killing Al Qeada though.


you forgot WW2!
100years war
30 years war
all latin america
irish-british
italian city wars

and you sound as if Afghans invited British and Russian!
Bikerman
horseatingweeds wrote:
I think that's one of the problems. War is like the national sport of many of the Muslim countries. It been that way for 1500 years. Look at the Afghans. They fought the British through the 19th century, having all kinds of fun. Had a rest. Then got to fight the Soviets. Of course, the Soviets upped the anti, leveling villages and all that, but the tribes still fought them and each other until the Soviets gave up.

Afghanistan's troubled history is largely because of it's location at the crossroads of Asia, not because of religion. They fought the British because we invaded them and interfered with governance of the country to suit British interests at the time (Afghanistan lies directly between two world powers of that time - Russia and Britain).
The Soviets were lured into Arghanistan quite deliberately by the US in order to bog-down Soviet military assests in an unwinnable conflict. As the then Secretary of Defense, Slocombe, put it:
Slocombe wrote:
There is value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a122679invasion
Quote:
Now, they're still fighting each other, although Afghanistan has made a lot of progress in the past 50 years and seems to be getting over this type of thing, modernizing and so on. They're still really good at killing Al Qeada though.

Ironically Al-Qaeda has its origins in the Afghanistan 'Mujahideen' resistance movement which was, of course, funded and trained by the US to fight the Soviets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan#Soviet_intervention_.281978-1992.29
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html
horseatingweeds
Thus the popularity of the sport....

Seriously though, try to get some better info. the US didn't train or fund the anything that developed into Al Qaeda.

The US aided the Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). These are the guys on the other side of the border that helped the Afghan freedom fighter, who were hundreds or different faction / tribes who were fighting the Soviets (the also fought themselves even during the invasion - keeping up the good sport I suppose)

These factions had a history of fighting with the English, but the Soviets were different.

A Qaeda came from the 'Afghan Arabs,' a foreign group of which Bin Ladin was a member.

The Afghans are also descended from the Great Hoards of Ghengis Khan, also good sporting fighters.

I'm not blaming the people, it's the culture of most tribal peoples with thousand year old disputes. The Persian tribal nations have always been much worse than most.
Bikerman
horseatingweeds wrote:
Thus the popularity of the sport....

Seriously though, try to get some better info. the US didn't train or fund the anything that developed into Al Qaeda.

My information is pretty good. It looks like yours is limited to the views of Peter Bergen from CNN.
I prefer to believe Robin Cook (and other commentators) who takes a different view :
Cook wrote:
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. 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

People can decide for themselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden
horseatingweeds
Bikerman wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Thus the popularity of the sport....

Seriously though, try to get some better info. the US didn't train or fund the anything that developed into Al Qaeda.

My information is pretty good. It looks like yours is limited to the views of Peter Bergen from CNN.
I prefer to believe Robin Cook (and other commentators) who takes a different view :
Cook wrote:
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. 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

People can decide for themselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden


LOL I knew I'd flush you out Bikerman. I prefer not to get my information at all from commentators... In fact, I recognize neither of the people you reference. Also, wiki article, although it information is vastly accurate statistically, is no end source of information for people to "decide for themselves."

LOL

Try reading some books....

Here's a good one by a guy who is far from a supporter of US foreign war. He was a tourist to Afghanistan before college then returned during the conflict as a journalist.

Afghanistan: The Soviet War
Edward R. Girardet

Not particularly about CIA activity but a great source for how the Soviets and Afghans actually fought each other, not much like on Rambo. - If you've ever see The Beast, that's a little more accurate, not that you should get info from movies. -

The only way Bin Ladin would have gotten US provided weapons would have been in the corruption in the rout the weapons took early in the operation. He could have bought them from one of the factions with his bundles of cash.

Any way, this stupid theory about the US creating bin Ladin is so unreal. Bin Ladin wasn't some apple farming goat herder who got his land busted up by Soviet armor. He didn't need any US aid. He could finance all the weapons he could use.

Regardless, the US was aiding men who were trying to defend their homes from Soviets, with whom the US was more-or-less at war with, who were blowing up their homes, pressing them and their sons into army service, killing their animals, burning their crops, destroying their buildings and irrigation, and poisoning their wells.

And don't go trying to compare Afghan - Soviet to Vietnam or Iraq, commentators LOVE throwing that out too.
Bikerman
horseatingweeds wrote:

LOL I knew I'd flush you out Bikerman. I prefer not to get my information at all from commentators... In fact, I recognize neither of the people you reference. Also, wiki article, although it information is vastly accurate statistically, is no end source of information for people to "decide for themselves."

Well the person I referenced should be familiar to you and the fact that you don't recognise Robin Cook says a lot for the 'special relationship'.
Robin Cook was the British Foreign Secretary (1997-2001) - in other words the Government Minister who was responsible for foreign affairs here in the UK. Hardly just a 'commentator'.

I use wiki frequently for references, but only after I have first checked the reference to see if I believe it offers balance. In the case of this particular reference there is a comprehensive section on criticisms of the claims made, and I therefore think it is a balanced and useful reference for anyone with no previous knowledge of the claims.
horseatingweeds wrote:
Try reading some books...
Here's a good one by a guy who is far from a supporter of US foreign war. He was a tourist to Afghanistan before college then returned during the conflict as a journalist.

Afghanistan: The Soviet War
Edward R. Girardet
So not a commentator then?

At no point have I said that the US 'created' Bin Laden. I said that the Al-Qaeda organisation grew out of the Mujahideen which was funded and trained by the US. It is certainly true that the Afghan Arabs were part of this movement. It is also true, however, that many of the Mujahideen threw in their lot with Azzam (the first 'leader' of Al Qaeda) after the Soviet Withdrawal.

The separate claim (which I did not make*) that Al Qaeda is, itself, a US creation, is based on the work of documentary maker Adam Curtis who, in the BBC 'Power of Nightmares' contends that:
Quote:
The reality was that bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned Islamist militants who were attracted by the new strategy. But there was no organization. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander. There is also no evidence that bin Laden used the term "al-Qaeda" to refer to the name of a group until after September the 11th, when he realized that this was the term the Americans had given it.

The reason the US had used the name 'Al Qaeda' was because they needed to show that Bin Laden was the head of a criminal organisation in order to prosecute him for the 1998 Embassy bombings in Africa. The name 'Al Qaeda' arose from the testimony of Jamal al-Fadl as part of a plea bargain with US authorities.

*I don't know how accurate this is, although it does seem credible.
horseatingweeds wrote:
And don't go trying to compare Afghan - Soviet to Vietnam or Iraq, commentators LOVE throwing that out too.

I didn't - the comparison was made by the US Secretary of Defense - Slocombe, not me.

{Post edited several times to correct errors and add references}
horseatingweeds
OK, so a while after the Soviet invasion the US sends money and routs weapons into Pakistan to aid the ISI in training and supplying Afghan freedom fighters. Now, only a small number of Afghans were trained in the Pakistan camps, contrary to Soviet claims. Most of the Mojahdeen were trained by other Mojahdeen and funded from local non-comb resistance and their own raids on the Soviets.

After a while, with help from several countries, the freedom fighters make Afghanistan becomes too miserable so they leave. Later still, someone comes along, a foreign group, and uses the Afghan wilderness to train terrorists (let's just call this group Al Qaeda once they start training to kill civilians). This group recruits some of the men who had fought the Soviets one way or another in what ever faction however it was funded. They would have been easy to recruit. Most couldn't head and were poor. All they knew of the US was that it had given their country grants, unlike the Soviets who gave them loan, and like the Soviets built roads and airports, which the Soviets used for the invasion.

Fine, if we're going to call not giving a detainee sugar for his corn flakes torture then I guess we can say the US funded Al Qaeda.

Really though. Making such thin statements is irresponsible. "The US funded Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets," might be true if we are willing to rationalize ourselves free of reality. The problem is, to the average person who doesn't even know their own history, will view this as your commentators hope, and lead into these wild ideas that the US footed the whole bill for Bin Ladin to train terrorist against the Soviets, then, oops, he turned on the US with all the happy US weapons and training. This is far-fetched.

You can ignore the logic and even the facts and see how erroneous this is looking only at fundamentals. The US supported, indirectly, several guerilla groups fighting the Soviet and Afghan armies. Later, in the same place, a foreign group moved in, recruited some of the veterans of this fight, and trains them terror tactics. Fundamental difference there.

I don't mean to be a jerk but this kind of "I heard a guy on the radio" crap gets under my skin. To many people just believe stupid stuff like this and it turns into these big myths.

What is the reality? Should the US not have aided the Afghan fighters?
Bikerman
horseatingweeds wrote:
OK, so a while after the Soviet invasion the US sends money and routs weapons into Pakistan to aid the ISI in training and supplying Afghan freedom fighters. Now, only a small number of Afghans were trained in the Pakistan camps, contrary to Soviet claims. Most of the Mojahdeen were trained by other Mojahdeen and funded from local non-comb resistance and their own raids on the Soviets.
Trying to re-write history? The US were funding the Mujahideen before the Soviet invasion. The rationale behind this was to draw-in the Soviets. The notion that the US only started funding after the invasion is a myth.
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote:
According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise."

Brzezinski played a fundamental role in crafting U.S. policy, which, unbeknownst even to the Mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
Quote:
Fine, if we're going to call not giving a detainee sugar for his corn flakes torture then I guess we can say the US funded Al Qaeda.
Who mentioned sugar and cornflakes? What has this to do with the question?
Quote:
You can ignore the logic and even the facts and see how erroneous this is looking only at fundamentals. The US supported, indirectly, several guerilla groups fighting the Soviet and Afghan armies. Later, in the same place, a foreign group moved in, recruited some of the veterans of this fight, and trains them terror tactics. Fundamental difference there.

I prefer not to ignore logic and facts. The fundamentals you cite are wrong. The US supported guerilla groups who were not fighting the Soviet army since this was pre-invasion.
The training in terror tactics was, at least to some extent, carried out with CIA-supplied handbooks.
Guardian wrote:
American officials estimate that, from 1985 to 1992, 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and urban guerrilla warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up.

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/yemen/Story/0,2763,209260,00.html#article_continue
Quote:
Really though. Making such thin statements is irresponsible. "The US funded Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets," might be true if we are willing to rationalize ourselves free of reality. The problem is, to the average person who doesn't even know their own history, will view this as your commentators hope, and lead into these wild ideas that the US footed the whole bill for Bin Ladin to train terrorist against the Soviets, then, oops, he turned on the US with all the happy US weapons and training. This is far-fetched.

Irresponsible? Once again you choose to respond to comments that I never made. It's called the 'straw-man' fallacy. I never said that "The US funded Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets". My comments were specific and to the best of my knowledge accurate. I said that the US funded the Mujahideen to fight the soviets and that the Mujahideen later formed a major part of Al-Qaeda AFTER the Soviet withdrawal. The statement is not 'thin' and I supplied citations for my sources.
Quote:
I don't mean to be a jerk but this kind of "I heard a guy on the radio" crap gets under my skin. To many people just believe stupid stuff like this and it turns into these big myths.

Who mentioned 'hearing a guy on the radio"? Everything I have claimed is accompanied by references and citations and is not just personal rant. I don't share your low opinion of the average person's ability to deal with facts and form their own opinion.
Quote:
What is the reality? Should the US not have aided the Afghan fighters?

In my opinion they should not have, yes.
horseatingweeds
Bikerman wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
OK, so a while after the Soviet invasion the US sends money and routs weapons into Pakistan to aid the ISI in training and supplying Afghan freedom fighters. Now, only a small number of Afghans were trained in the Pakistan camps, contrary to Soviet claims. Most of the Mojahdeen were trained by other Mojahdeen and funded from local non-comb resistance and their own raids on the Soviets.
Trying to re-write history? The US were funding the Mujahideen before the Soviet invasion. The rationale behind this was to draw-in the Soviets. The notion that the US only started funding after the invasion is a myth.
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote:
According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise."

Brzezinski played a fundamental role in crafting U.S. policy, which, unbeknownst even to the Mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan


So what does the wiki article say? The the us brought US weapons on US transports directly to the Mujas? No, that whould have pissed the Soviets. The CIA took other routs that didn't work well until they cleaned up the operation latter.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
You can ignore the logic and even the facts and see how erroneous this is looking only at fundamentals. The US supported, indirectly, several guerilla groups fighting the Soviet and Afghan armies. Later, in the same place, a foreign group moved in, recruited some of the veterans of this fight, and trains them terror tactics. Fundamental difference there.

I prefer not to ignore logic and facts. The fundamentals you cite are wrong. The US supported guerilla groups who were not fighting the Soviet army since this was pre-invasion.
The training in terror tactics was, at least to some extent, carried out with CIA-supplied handbooks.
Guardian wrote:
American officials estimate that, from 1985 to 1992, 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and urban guerrilla warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up.


Indeed, you prefer to concentrate of broad basic internet article that don't give you the details to draw proper logic. My point was simply that, without logic and facts, since you seem without facts in particular besides basic ones, that one can determine certain things with simple fundamental understandings. If someone grows up to be a criminal you can't blame the school board for funding and creating a criminal. The CIA aided Pakistan's project for training Muja guerillas - this doesn't mean they helped Al Qaeda or created it.

Again you're leading to the accusation that the CIA introduced or created terrorists in Afghanistan. Fist, terror tactics have existed in Afghanistan forever... as if it were a standard political mechanism between the numerous factions. The Mujadeen was a guerilla force, not usually even leaving their own home areas. They fought Soviet and Afghan soldiers, not civilians. Hell, Massoud's group, when they raided truck traffic, would not only let the driver go but would give him a receipt for the goods. Laughing

We can return to fundamentals to answer this. You say since the CIA aided the Mujas before the invasion so it must have been terror training. We'll, terror tactics only work on democratic societies. USSR would not be a terror target. Civilian uprising never bothered the Kremlin. Any assertion that the CIA was training Afghans terror tactics to us against the Soviets makes no sense. It does make sense, however, that the CIA would support the resistance to the PDPA (Afghan soldiers with Soviet advisers, pilots, equipment, etc.) or even the the Daoud prior to that, who made the coup on July 1973, also backed by the Soviets.

It's doubtful that the CIA would have been after the Daoud regime though. At first they seemed very soviet but then began mending fences with Iran and Pakistan, and even signed agreements with the US. So, most likely the CIA began it covert involvement arou[url]nd the PDPA coup. This was April 1[/url]978.

Here is a reasonable overview....

No Soviet troops before the invasion? That's wrong or at least miss leading. There were plenty of Afghan Communists (and Soviet soldiers, consultants, and so on) soldiers to fight and plenty of Afghan communists purging members of the other factions well before the invasion. It's not as if the invasion was some marked change introducing a new enemy to the Mujha.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Really though. Making such thin statements is irresponsible. "The US funded Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets," might be true if we are willing to rationalize ourselves free of reality. The problem is, to the average person who doesn't even know their own history, will view this as your commentators hope, and lead into these wild ideas that the US footed the whole bill for Bin Ladin to train terrorist against the Soviets, then, oops, he turned on the US with all the happy US weapons and training. This is far-fetched.

Irresponsible? Once again you choose to respond to comments that I never made. It's called the 'straw-man' fallacy. I never said that "The US funded Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets". My comments were specific and to the best of my knowledge accurate. I said that the US funded the Mujahideen to fight the soviets and that the Mujahideen later formed a major part of Al-Qaeda AFTER the Soviet withdrawal. The statement is not 'thin' and I supplied citations for my sources.


Bikerman wrote:
Ironically Al-Qaeda has its origins in the Afghanistan 'Mujahideen' resistance movement which was, of course, funded and trained by the US to fight the Soviets.


You, like your commentators, like to say this as if the US created Al Qaeda. Irresponsible. Not straw-man. You're saying one thing that leads to the assumption of another, that's what I'm pointing out.


Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
I don't mean to be a jerk but this kind of "I heard a guy on the radio" crap gets under my skin. To many people just believe stupid stuff like this and it turns into these big myths.

Who mentioned 'hearing a guy on the radio"? Everything I have claimed is accompanied by references and citations and is not just personal rant. I don't share your low opinion of the average person's ability to deal with facts and form their own opinion.


You must live at a university then.... How many people do you think even know where Afghanistan is, let alone it conflicts or relations. Your commentator (radio guy, I was just being arbitrary) was only mention such a tid-bit to sway the average person to his political view - irresponsible.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
What is the reality? Should the US not have aided the Afghan fighters?

In my opinion they should not have, yes.


I really don't know what to say about this. Do you have a conscience or a belief that the strong should help the week? The US was one of many countries aiding the Mujahed.

Adbullah, Khalqi cammander of Pul-e-charkhi prison in kabul wrote:
A million Afghans are all that should remain alive - a million communists. The rest, we don't need. We'll get rid of all of them.


I think more likely you don't understand everything going on in this area of history. I'm not trying to be rood. If you want to discus this further perhaps we should allow some time for you to check out some library books, some Afghan history written in the late 80's would be idea. The we can open a new thread just on this subject.

{edited to make a clarification}
Bikerman
horseatingweeds wrote:
So what does the wiki article say? The the us brought US weapons on US transports directly to the Mujas? No, that whould have pissed the Soviets. The CIA took other routs that didn't work well until they cleaned up the operation latter.
The fact is that they were supplying the guerillas before the Soviet invasion.
Quote:
My point was simply that, without logic and facts, since you seem without facts in particular besides basic ones, that one can determine certain things with simple fundamental understandings. If someone grows up to be a criminal you can't blame the school board for funding and creating a criminal. The CIA aided Pakistan's project for training Muja guerillas - this doesn't mean they helped Al Qaeda or created it.
Providing a pool of terrorist-trained fighters certainly helped Al Qaeda as the articles I cited earlier demonstrate.
Quote:
We can return to fundamentals to answer this. You say since the CIA aided the Mujas before the invasion so it must have been terror training. We'll, terror tactics only work on democratic societies. USSR would not be a terror target. Civilian uprising never bothered the Kremlin. Any assertion that the CIA was training Afghans terror tactics to us against the Soviets makes no sense. It does make sense, however, that the CIA would support the resistance to the PDPA (Afghan soldiers with Soviet advisers, pilots, equipment, etc.) or even the the Daoud prior to that, who made the coup on July 1973, also backed by the Soviets.
The USSR has been a repeated terror target, as has Russia since the breakup. Remember the Theatre incident in Moscow? The Chechyn's have been using terror-tactics against the Russians repeatedly. To say that terrorism only works in democracies is simply wrong. Terrorism works in most political setups. The idea is to scare the population enough to stir-up political change. Consider, for example, the ANC in South Africa....(unless you consider the apartheid regime to have been democratic, of course).

There is no practical difference between training someone to make bombs to blow-up military targets and training someone to make bombs to blow up civilian targets.
Quote:
It's doubtful that the CIA would have been after the Daoud regime though. At first they seemed very soviet but then began mending fences with Iran and Pakistan, and even signed agreements with the US. So, most likely the CIA began it covert involvement arou[url]nd the PDPA coup. This was April 1[/url]978.
In other words, before the Soviet invasion not, as you claimed, "a while after the Soviet invasion."
The PDPA were a progressive government by many standards. They abolished usury, banned forced marriages, introduced state recognition of women’s rights to vote, replaced religious and traditional laws with secular (Marxist) ones, banned tribal courts, and brought in land reform. Of course they were communist, so the US wanted to destroy them, but to categorise the PDPA as the demon of the piece is wrong. The guerillas that the US were financing and training wanted to setup a fundamentalist Islamic state. Given the choice between the 2 (Marxist secular state vs fundamentalist Islamic state) I personally would choose the former.
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
Ironically Al-Qaeda has its origins in the Afghanistan 'Mujahideen' resistance movement which was, of course, funded and trained by the US to fight the Soviets.
You, like your commentators, like to say this as if the US created Al Qaeda. Irresponsible. Not straw-man. You're saying one thing that leads to the assumption of another, that's what I'm pointing out.
I am happy to clarify the statement. It was not my intention to say that the US created Al Qaeda. I don't think my words say that they did, but if there is any doubt then I happily remove it.
Quote:
You must live at a university then.... How many people do you think even know where Afghanistan is, let alone it conflicts or relations. Your commentator (radio guy, I was just being arbitrary) was only mention such a tid-bit to sway the average person to his political view - irresponsible.
My 'commentator', as I have already said, was the British Foreign Secretary.
Quote:
I really don't know what to say about this. Do you have a conscience or a belief that the strong should help the week? The US was one of many countries aiding the Mujahed.

The US was simply acting in it's own interests, as previously discussed, by trying to draw the Soviets into a protracted war. It was not 'defending the weak'.
Quote:

[quote="Adbullah, Khalqi cammander of Pul-e-charkhi prison in kabul"]A million Afghans are all that should remain alive - a million communists. The rest, we don't need. We'll get rid of all of them.
A very nasty man, no doubt. I don't think, however, that we can judge a regime by the words of a prison governor.
Quote:
I think more likely you don't understand everything going on in this area of history. I'm not trying to be rood. If you want to discus this further perhaps we should allow some time for you to check out some library books, some Afghan history written in the late 80's would be idea. The we can open a new thread just on this subject.
I understand the history reasonably well. It is not my specialism, to be sure, but I don't think, if you read back over the thread, that it is I who has been guilty of making repeated untrue statements....
horseatingweeds
Bikerman wrote:
The fact is that they were supplying the guerillas before the Soviet invasion.


Yes - against the Soviets in Afghanistan as well as the PDPA forces.

Bikerman wrote:
Providing a pool of terrorist-trained fighters certainly helped Al Qaeda as the articles I cited earlier demonstrate.


CIA trained guarillas. It wouldn't have made sense to use terror tactics. The Muha was fighting an army from the very start of their resistance about six months after the takeover in 1978. And there you go again, no, it wouldn't have helped Al Quaeda.

Lets just say the CIA did contribute to some amount of terror training for some odd reason. So you're saying, that the training of some people in 1978 would contribute to a new group put together by the foreign Afghan Arabs over ten years later?

Regardless, it wouldn't make sense. Unless you're just calling everything terrorist....

Quote:
The USSR has been a repeated terror target, as has Russia since the breakup. Remember the Theatre incident in Moscow? The Chechyn's have been using terror-tactics against the Russians repeatedly. To say that terrorism only works in democracies is simply wrong. Terrorism works in most political setups. The idea is to scare the population enough to stir-up political change. Consider, for example, the ANC in South Africa....(unless you consider the apartheid regime to have been democratic, of course).


And what do the Russians do? They blaze their way in and kill the terrorist. Also, I mean the society needs to have some kind of democracy or voice - being called or not called democracy doesn't matter.

Quote:
There is no practical difference between training someone to make bombs to blow-up military targets and training someone to make bombs to blow up civilian targets.


Shows what you know. Terror tactics include more than making bombs. You have to convince someone to kill civilians. This is not something the Mujah were ever willing to do. It doesn't make sense. You wouldn't attack a terror target when there is an army outpost. These were certainly attacked and raided.

Quote:
In other words, before the Soviet invasion not, as you claimed, "a while after the Soviet invasion."


My claim was that they didn't have anything resembling and efficient operation until a while after. It was mostly equipment, and on its way from were ever, to Pakistan, it disappeared or was replaced - no impacts.

Quote:
The PDPA were a progressive government by many standards. They abolished usury, banned forced marriages, introduced state recognition of women’s rights to vote, replaced religious and traditional laws with secular (Marxist) ones, banned tribal courts, and brought in land reform. Of course they were communist, so the US wanted to destroy them, but to categorise the PDPA as the demon of the piece is wrong. The guerillas that the US were financing and training wanted to setup a fundamentalist Islamic state. Given the choice between the 2 (Marxist secular state vs fundamentalist Islamic state) I personally would choose the former.


Of course you do. All you read are Wiki articles so you have no idea what went on. This is why you should read some books before you bother me again. Mujha's came from the countryside. The Kalqi government forced their brand of communism on these devout people. First, they took the land from the land owners, breaking apart the hundreds-year-old system of farming that would have starved the population, as the same Lenin-Marxist communism did in Russia or China during their 'transitions.' This didn't happen though. In Islam, a man does not steal from another man, so the landlords kept their land.

The Kalqi continued forcing Communism on the country people in the regular communist-or-die fashion including bloody reprisals for non-cooperation. Ripping vales off of woman, forcing them into school, the opressioni was so bad even the Soviet officials tried to urge Taraki to be more gentle or establish a more representative gov't. He said, "Those who plot against us in the dark will vanish in the dark."

Then there were the massacres; lining men up and ordering them to scream communist slogans. Of course, they chose rather to yell, "God is good," and were shot and buried while their woman and children watched. It was all enough to make Afghanistan into a police state.

So, you're WRONG. This type of government is the worst type of evil. Believe what we say or die....

Bikerman wrote:
I am happy to clarify the statement. It was not my intention to say that the US created Al Qaeda. I don't think my words say that they did, but if there is any doubt then I happily remove it.


Good. But one must use care when saying certain things that can lead the less informed to an erroneous conclusion.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
You must live at a university then.... How many people do you think even know where Afghanistan is, let alone it conflicts or relations. Your commentator (radio guy, I was just being arbitrary) was only mention such a tid-bit to sway the average person to his political view - irresponsible.
My 'commentator', as I have already said, was the British Foreign Secretary.


So that qualifies him further for saying such things to convince the public of falsities to bring them onto his side

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
I really don't know what to say about this. Do you have a conscience or a belief that the strong should help the week? The US was one of many countries aiding the Mujahed.


The US was simply acting in it's own interests, as previously discussed, by trying to draw the Soviets into a protracted war. It was not 'defending the weak'.


Perhaps not. Let me change that to "defend the free world."

It's also doubtful that the CIA intention was, as your thing said, draw the Soviets in. They already had a huge presence in Afghanistan. I doubt the CIA could have foreseen the Mujha's ability any better than the Soviets. What I remember reading is that the CIA was surprised by their ability. The CIA certainly wouldn't have wanted the Soviets in such a strategic central place as Afghanistan and so close the the Indian ocean.

Quote:

Adbullah, Khalqi cammander of Pul-e-charkhi prison in kabul wrote:
A million Afghans are all that should remain alive - a million communists. The rest, we don't need. We'll get rid of all of them.
A very nasty man, no doubt. I don't think, however, that we can judge a regime by the words of a prison governor.


We can judge it by the leader's word, Taraki, perhaps. As they are above. Or by his massacres or oppression of his people. Do a little reading....

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
I think more likely you don't understand everything going on in this area of history. I'm not trying to be rood. If you want to discus this further perhaps we should allow some time for you to check out some library books, some Afghan history written in the late 80's would be idea. The we can open a new thread just on this subject.


I understand the history reasonably well. It is not my specialism, to be sure, but I don't think, if you read back over the thread, that it is I who has been guilty of making repeated untrue statements....


Are you trying to say I am making the untrue statements? Show me one. Regardless, if you think you have a good understanding of Afghan history that is a good sign of ignorance. I have a small small understanding yet look at all the information I've given you - contrary to your starting conclusion.

Some of your statements are very untrue, from the lack of details. A good example is your assumption that the Taraki government was simply a polite communist regime and a better choice that a fundamentalist Islamic regime. They were killing their people Bikeerman and worse.

Here's a tid-bit on the Kernala massacre

They also arrested or simply killed communist non-cooperatives. Many landlords (village leaders) were imprisoned, tortured, and killed in a huge network of prisons. Ever wonder why fundamental Islamists hate the US. I think is has something to do with their treatment by such governments. Can a farmer know the difference between two non-Muslim super powers? Does he understand the two very different philosophies, communism, democracy? No - he just sees another imperialist poising to stomp out his beloved religion and way of life.

The only thing wrong with a fundamental Islamic state, from my personal view, is their 'oppression' of women and refusal to make use of technology. However, if they choose to live like people did in the first millennium, that's their business. In such a place their treatment of woman is natural.

In reality, the problem is that such societies are on the brink of poverty. One drought can change a map, like it did in Afghanistan bringing iback the Daoud regime. In our new world we have militant fundamental Islamist Fascists, who i believe were created by the Soviets, who can easily prey on these societies. That's why they are bad for the free world now.
Bikerman
horseatingweeds wrote:
Are you trying to say I am making the untrue statements? Show me one.
OK since you insist.
1) the US didn't train or fund the anything that developed into Al Qaeda.
2) OK, so a while after the Soviet invasion the US sends money and routs weapons into Pakistan to aid the ISI in training and supplying Afghan freedom fighters.
3) We'll, terror tactics only work on democratic societies.
4) It's also doubtful that the CIA intention was, as your thing said, draw the Soviets in.
(why not simply read what the CIA director, Gates, and the Under-Secretary of Defense - Walter Slocombe - say about it).
Quote:
In his memoirs, former CIA director Robert Gates (1991-1993) said that the U.S. provoked the December 1979 Soviet intervention in Afghanistan by giving military assistance to the mujahideen. Gates recalls a meeting, nine months earlier, on March 30, 1979, when Under Secretary of Defense Walter Slocombe said "there was value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, 'sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire.'"


PS - I have ordered "Afghanistan: A Modern History" by Angelo Rasanayagam and "Afghanistan: A Military History from Alexander the Great to the Present" by Steven Tanner from my local library and I will, as you suggest, read them before continuing this thread.
horseatingweeds
Bikerman wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Are you trying to say I am making the untrue statements? Show me one.
OK since you insist.
1) the US didn't train or fund the anything that developed into Al Qaeda.


They didn't, unless you rationalize ridiculously.

Quote:

2) OK, so a while after the Soviet invasion the US sends money and routs weapons into Pakistan to aid the ISI in training and supplying Afghan freedom fighters.


As I clarified, the CIA effort only made impact later.

Quote:

3) We'll, terror tactics only work on democratic societies.


As I also clarified for your brain, not societies called democracies, societies that practice democracy. The people need a voice. Terrorism terrorizes the population into political change. This wont work where the people have no say in politics. This is a well know fundamental.

Quote:
4) It's also doubtful that the CIA intention was, as your thing said, draw the Soviets in.
(why not simply read what the Under-Secretary of Defense - Walter Slocombe - says about it).

You're misunderstanding Walter's quote. “there was value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, ‘sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire." I know you're grabbing a straws but it sounds fairly evident that he's saying that keeping the Soviets in the war was good, keeping them bogged down, not introducing them into the country. I think 'sucking them in obviously' means bringing them from a bad conflict into a costly conflict, similar to a Vietnam quagmire, not sucking them into the country.

Come on Bike, are you just saning my stuff? Show me something I said that was actually untrue and not just misunderstood ridiculously.

Quote:
PS - I have ordered "Afghanistan: A Modern History" by Angelo Rasanayagam and "Afghanistan: A Military History from Alexander the Great to the Present" by Steven Tanner from my local library and I will, as you suggest, read them before continuing this thread.


That's good. Try to read them without the bias you've shown to Walter's quote though - huh. THose two books are light on this subject though. They're also very new so susceptible to political bias. Like I said, find something written in the late 80s or early 90s. Afganistan: The Soviet War by Edward R. Girardet is a good one. He was actually there with the Mujahideen.
Bikerman
I'll deal with the first 3 points in another posting. Let's just clear up the last point quickly, because it's quite easy to do....
horseatingweeds wrote:

You're misunderstanding Walter's quote. “there was value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, ‘sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire." I know you're grabbing a straws but it sounds fairly evident that he's saying that keeping the Soviets in the war was good, keeping them bogged down, not introducing them into the country. I think 'sucking them in obviously' means bringing them from a bad conflict into a costly conflict, similar to a Vietnam quagmire, not sucking them into the country.
Read the quote again - this time pay note to the DATE.
"In his memoirs, former CIA director Robert Gates (1991-1993) said that the U.S. provoked the December 1979 Soviet intervention in Afghanistan by giving military assistance to the mujahideen. Gates recalls a meeting, nine months earlier, on March 30, 1979, when Under Secretary of Defense Walter Slocombe said "there was value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, 'sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire.'"
Note that the Soviet invasion was in December 1979....
I really don't think I have misunderstood the quote, do you?
Quote:
That's good. Try to read them without the bias you've shown to Walter's quote though - huh. THose two books are light on this subject though. They're also very new so susceptible to political bias. Like I said, find something written in the late 80s or early 90s. Afganistan: The Soviet War by Edward R. Girardet is a good one. He was actually there with the Mujahideen.

So you've read the two books have you?
liljp617
horseatingweeds wrote:
Thus the popularity of the sport....

Seriously though, try to get some better info. the US didn't train or fund the anything that developed into Al Qaeda.

The US aided the Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). These are the guys on the other side of the border that helped the Afghan freedom fighter, who were hundreds or different faction / tribes who were fighting the Soviets (the also fought themselves even during the invasion - keeping up the good sport I suppose)

These factions had a history of fighting with the English, but the Soviets were different.

A Qaeda came from the 'Afghan Arabs,' a foreign group of which Bin Ladin was a member.

The Afghans are also descended from the Great Hoards of Ghengis Khan, also good sporting fighters.

I'm not blaming the people, it's the culture of most tribal peoples with thousand year old disputes. The Persian tribal nations have always been much worse than most.

Are you really being serious =/
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.