Guest on Glenn Beck's Show Says Another Terrorist Attack is "Our Only Chance"!!

[BioDefenseGrad]

I suppose if you want to use the term fund strictly the US didn't. However Charlie Wilson and "Scoop" Jackson were directly involved in undocumented funding of C.I.A. SOD/SOG for covert ops in Afghanistan in support of the Mujahideen.

Certainly it was the likely case that such ops involved material support in the form of currency also. In many cases it's just the nature of some ops to have that be a part of it.:2 cents:

Both categorically deny funding the "Afghan Arabs" and said that it would be very difficult to have dealings with them because they were violently Anti-American at that time. I don't know the full story about Operation Cyclone, but I believe Charlie Wilson unless he's using semantics to cover up for someone else who DID aid Bin Laden.

 

[Hot Mega]

Both categorically deny funding the "Afghan Arabs" and said that it would be very difficult to have dealings with them because they were violently Anti-American at that time. I don't know the full story about Operation Cyclone, but I believe Charlie Wilson unless he's using semantics to cover up for someone else who DID aid Bin Laden.

There is allot of wiggle room in that statement as there were many foreign fighters which comprised the Mujahideen (including OBL) not just "Afghan Arabs". But certainly you must know that enjoining indigenous forces and providing material support will require at some point the transferring of currency as a sheer matter of practicality.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

There is allot of wiggle room in that statement as there were many foreign fighters which comprised the Mujahideen (including OBL) not just "Afghan Arabs". But certainly you must know that enjoining indigenous forces and providing material support will require at some point the transferring of currency as a sheer matter of practicality.

Currency was secondary. We brought them everything from Stinger missiles to thousands of mules and donkeys.

 

[Hot Mega]

Currency was secondary. We brought them everything from Stinger missiles to thousands of mules and donkeys.

We delivered/supplied Stinger missiles and they bought mules, donkeys and other logistics with the funds we sourced them. Beyond that, assigning a priority to what was given them is almost irrelevant as the question is, did we loosely fund their efforts of people like OBL in that conflict? The simple answer to that question is "yes".

All of the anecdotal and hard evidence points to it.

Personally, I don't have any heartache over what they did. Charlie Wilson and "Scoop" Jackson are two American patriots who were the go-to guys to stake their personal legacies to combat Soviet expansion.

Speaking of which George Soros for all of the brickbats he's been on the receiving end of from "the right" was probably the single greatest contributor to the cause of stopping Soviet expansion and helping to end the Soviet empire with his own, personal wealth.:2 cents:

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

We delivered/supplied Stinger missiles and they bought mules, donkeys and other logistics with the funds we sourced them. Beyond that, assigning a priority to what was given them is almost irrelevant as the question is, did we loosely fund their efforts of people like OBL in that conflict? The simple answer to that question is "yes".

All of the anecdotal and hard evidence points to it.

Personally, I don't have any heartache over what they did. Charlie Wilson and "Scoop" Jackson are two American patriots who were the go-to guys to stake their personal legacies to combat Soviet expansion.

Speaking of which George Soros for all of the brickbats he's been on the receiving end of from "the right" was probably the single greatest contributor to the cause of stopping Soviet expansion and helping to end the Soviet empire with his own, personal wealth.:2 cents:

"People like" OBL and the Al Qaeda prototype is a lot different than saying we funded him. He was a Jihadi fighting the Russians with a global outlook, yes there were others like that. Foreign fighters that went on to target the West weren't as common. You can't go back to the original point made, that we helped to train and equip Osama Bin Laden's network prior to 9/11 by saying 'we equipped and trained people like bin laden.' Money given to the ISI may have and probably did go to Bin Laden and others, but that doesn't make the U.S. culpable, which is what people are trying to do.

Like many of the masochists on the left, they always want to say we created the monster attacking us. We're at fault. That's not the case for Al Qaeda.

 

[Hot Mega]

"People like" OBL and the Al Qaeda prototype is a lot different than saying we funded him. He was a Jihadi fighting the Russians with a global outlook, yes there were others like that. Foreign fighters that went on to target the West weren't as common. You can't go back to the original point made, that we helped to train and equip Osama Bin Laden's network prior to 9/11 by saying 'we equipped and trained people like bin laden.' Money given to the ISI may have and probably did go to Bin Laden and others, but that doesn't make the U.S. culpable, which is what people are trying to do.

Like many of the masochists on the left, they always want to say we created the monster attacking us. We're at fault. That's not the case for Al Qaeda.

Well on the distinction that we didn't fund them to attack us...which I presume is the implication you're challenging. I will agree 100 pct. if that's the case but we absolutely created a blow-back situation.

What I mean by that is whatever role we played, which was significant when one analyzes the impact of Stinger missiles introduced into the theater...it's effect was to embolden their instinctive world view that they can stand down and challenge outright "infidels" irrespective of might.

Also, that we didn't heed the lesson of Soviet/Afghan in creating rationale for them to launch their attacks toward the west. Of course, because of other dynamics it likely wouldn't have made a difference in any event. But it seems pretty juvenile to witness them fight to eject Soviets from "Arab land" then turn around and base our operations out of the home to Mecca and Medina.

 

[LootyK]

As I scanned through this thread, I didn't see anyone mention this article on Scheuer.
Apparently, Scheuer Explains His ‘Attack’ Comments.
http://washingtonindependent.com/49412/mike-scheuer-explains-his-attack-comments

I say "apparently" because this explanation comes from someone posting comments to this other article as Sheuer.
http://washingtonindependent.com/49373/is-michael-scheuer-actually-urging-an-attack-on-america#comment-12038888

Really, the coolest part of this article is the comments section, where Sheuer (maybe) debates with the other commenters.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Well on the distinction that we didn't fund them to attack us...which I presume is the implication you're challenging. I will agree 100 pct. if that's the case but we absolutely created a blow-back situation.

What I mean by that is whatever role we played, which was significant when one analyzes the impact of Stinger missiles introduced into the theater...it's effect was to embolden their instinctive world view that they can stand down and challenge outright "infidels" irrespective of might.

Also, that we didn't heed the lesson of Soviet/Afghan in creating rationale for them to launch their attacks toward the west. Of course, because of other dynamics it likely wouldn't have made a difference in any event. But it seems pretty juvenile to witness them fight to eject Soviets from "Arab land" then turn around and base our operations out of the home to Mecca and Medina.

I'm saying that we didn't intentionally fund him, didn't even exchange dollars with him. So I disagree totally. It's not blow back in the sense that we get an adverse reaction when dealing with people we know we shouldn't have.

If the ISI DID use our money and give it to Bin Laden, then it would be unintended consequences, hence we didn't "create Bin Laden" which is just a meme that folks critical of our cold-war era Foreign Policy as well as 9/11 use to try and make it seem like there's a connection.

The funniest part is asking them, "well what should we have done?" Because they sit there dumbstruck. Those who are honest or dumb enough to tell you what they're really thinking have said nothing. And when we follow it up with "Did we deserve it?" They say.."yes."

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

As I scanned through this thread, I didn't see anyone mention this article on Scheuer.
Apparently, Scheuer Explains His ‘Attack’ Comments.
http://washingtonindependent.com/49412/mike-scheuer-explains-his-attack-comments

I say "apparently" because this explanation comes from someone posting comments to this other article as Sheuer.
http://washingtonindependent.com/49373/is-michael-scheuer-actually-urging-an-attack-on-america#comment-12038888

Really, the coolest part of this article is the comments section, where Sheuer (maybe) debates with the other commenters.

That seems about right. I wouldn't let him off the hook entirely though, it's clear that he's doing damage control. I saw the interview and he didn't say or imply that he wanted something to happen, but that is what it would take to get the Government to wake up. He followed that up quickly by saying he would doubt that even another 9/11 would get the U.S. government to do the right thing.

 

[LootyK]

That seems about right. I wouldn't let him off the hook entirely though, it's clear that he's doing damage control. I saw the interview and he didn't say or imply that he wanted something to happen, but that is what it would take to get the Government to wake up. He followed that up quickly by saying he would doubt that even another 9/11 would get the U.S. government to do the right thing.

Well, that's what I liked about the comment section, they didn't let him off the hook, and he had to talk about it with the people instead of some talk show host. I thought the debate back and forth was interesting.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Well on the distinction that we didn't fund them to attack us...which I presume is the implication you're challenging. I will agree 100 pct. if that's the case but we absolutely created a blow-back situation.

What I mean by that is whatever role we played, which was significant when one analyzes the impact of Stinger missiles introduced into the theater...it's effect was to embolden their instinctive world view that they can stand down and challenge outright "infidels" irrespective of might.

Also, that we didn't heed the lesson of Soviet/Afghan in creating rationale for them to launch their attacks toward the west. Of course, because of other dynamics it likely wouldn't have made a difference in any event. But it seems pretty juvenile to witness them fight to eject Soviets from "Arab land" then turn around and base our operations out of the home to Mecca and Medina.

Also there's a difference between helping them get rid of Invaders and people who came with the consent of the government, even if they are the House of Saud. And remember, it was a pan-Afghan nationalist insurgency we were helping, the foreign fighters weren't a large force, not even a force multiplier worthy of our support. We can say that the U.S. didn't need to fund these guys before we even start to debate whether or not they actually did.

 

[Hot Mega]

[/B]

Also there's a difference between helping them get rid of Invaders and people who came with the consent of the government, even if they are the House of Saud. And remember, it was a pan-Afghan nationalist insurgency we were helping, the foreign fighters weren't a large force, not even a force multiplier worthy of our support. We can say that the U.S. didn't need to fund these guys before we even start to debate whether or not they actually did.

Obviously to some extremists...that isn't so. Certainly Islamo-extremists would view dimly attacks on Arab countries from the home to Mecca and Medina..

I think at this point we're splitting hairs and don't part ways on the subject very much...at least not to the point of continuing to thread this...

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Obviously to some extremists...that isn't so. Certainly Islamo-extremists would view dimly attacks on Arab countries from the home to Mecca and Medina..

I think at this point we're splitting hairs and don't part ways on the subject very much...at least not to the point of continuing to thread this...

I'm just pointing out how flimsy that is when people say we're hypocrites for helping them get the Soviets out of Afghanistan only for us to install bases in Saudi Arabia a few years later. Different group under different circumstances, and that's entertaining the notion that we did indeed fund the same type of foreign fighter that would one day become Al Qaeda or ideologically similar to them.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Everyone should google up Mr. Daniel "Saifullah" Boyd and his activities circa 1989-1992. Especially how he got out of having his Hand and Foot cut off as punishment for a Bank Robbery in Pakistan during that time.


It's definitely interesting and pertinent to the discussion of American involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War.