wake_up_bomb wrote:
Isn't she talking about Afghanistan in more general terms? Like the Taliban.
I was under the impression the US never actually directly funded Al Qeada because the money the US provided went to Pakistan where it was then dished out - so some of their money may have ended up with Al Qaeda but they didn't directly have anything to do with them. Maybe that's wrong, I dunno. I'd be genuinely interested to see anything reliable saying the US funded, trained and radicalised Al Qaeda specifically - which Hilary Clinton is not saying in those clips. I don't think you could say "into existence" though because Bin Laden and AAZ started doing their own thing at the outset without any American help.

dogsmilk wrote: I don't think al-Qaeda exists in any meaningful sense, certainly not in the sense that it's implied by the Anglo-American political leaders, so in that respect they didn't fund them into existence. She is talking about Afghanistan, however the United States openly trained, funded and radicaised Muslims within the borders of the United States for well over a decade. Many of these people went on to be some of the most prominent Islamic radicals, and lead the Afghan effort in war with the Soviets. And such ideology, which the US has openly fostered over at least a decade, is now supposedly the subject of US foreign policy, although obviously that's not the real motivation, the US foreign policy is driven by commingled banking-military-industrial interests.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Well of course "Al Qaeda" has been transmogrified into the worldwide network of ultimate evil, but I guess Al Qaeda can be said to have been OBL and AAZ's particular group with their own particular aims and goals and differences and points of convergence with other Islamic radicals. Like OBL didn't like America, but as I understand it the Taliban couldn't really give a fuck about America until they were made to give a fuck and really weren't interested in anything outside Afghanistan. While it's certainly true America backed Islamic militants in Afghanistan in a general sense for obvious reasons, I was just interested in anything that shows them backing Al Qaeda specifically because I've heard it said a lot (like in the oft said Al CIAeda) but have never come across anything that isn't very questionable (like the Bin Laden dialysis thing ).

It's impossible to back 'al-Qaeda' specifically because it doesn't exist as a singular terrorist group. It's merely an ideology that small groups of Islamic militants subscribe to, and that is used a catch-all term by Anglo-American political leaders. When Clinton refers to 'al-Qaeda' she merely means any form of Islamic radicalism that we can hang out hat on and use to justify our hawkish foreign policy. The US fundamentally fostered, funded, armed and radicalised this mentality which they are now supposedly fighting, not merely abroad but within their own borders. If you want to read about this then two good books are Urban Terrorism: Myths And Realities - Asthana, N. C. & Nirmal, A. and Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden - Steve Coll. There are many other books that make reference to it. Even some that broadly support the US 'War on Terror' and often put forward the idea that al-Qaeda grew out of the Darul Islam struggle in the 1940s make reference to it, such as The Talibanization of Southeast Asia: Losing the War on Terror to Islamist Extremists - Bilveer Singh.

Of course, US foreign policy is driven by banking-military-industrial interests not ideological wars.

Fahrenheit 9/11 woke me up back in 2004 even though some of the rap music from my teens was talking about illuminati in 1995.

But the fact that we used OBL against the soviets turned me into a Conspiracy Theorist although i'm skeptical.

I will never really know if Bin laden got mad and turned on us or it's all just a big Zionist conspiracy.

I was sold on the controlled demolition theory about 9/11 but sometimes i think the towers could have pancaked.

After Larry Silverstein said they pulled building 7 how could i not believe the conspiracy version.

I have a hard time believing all these people in politics are aware of this conspiracy.

After the Colorado and Sandy shootings i have become way more skeptical of these conspiracy theorys.

WUB i wasn't going off topic but the Bin laden vs the Soviets topic caused me to respond.

Well, people are welcome their own view on 9/11 which is more contentious. I don't personally think it's contentious, I think the official account is farcical, but as it's impossible to prove what actually happened, and indeed the federal government has done its best to cover-up and not investigate what actually happened, there will always be a lot of bones of contention.

In terms of whether or not the US federal government has sponsored, funded, harboured, armed and radicalised Islamic terrorists, they have done so quite explicitly. So if you put this together with the 'blowback' view that is often put forward, regarding the extent to which the abysmal US foreign policy (very much supported by Britain, and at least partially funded by British banks and the City of London) has created a great deal of resentment. And if you look at the extent to which the Anglo-American / EU-NATO foreign policy has continually undermined democratic, moderate governments that had liberal, reformatory policies and replaced them with tyrants (not merely with regards to Islam; we don't hear the US federal government talking about Sandinistas and Communism any more, because that's outlived its usefulness, but there was a time when this was an explicit part of the Reagan Doctrine, along with the Islamic stuff mentioned previously). And if you add into the mix the poverty in some of these nations, which is largely a product of the global crony capitalist, banking fascism that seeks to dominate the entire planet, and is pretty bloody close...then you would get a much more valid series of causal indicators with regard to why there are pockets of Islamic militancy in the world, rather than 'it's because they hate our freedoms'.

WUB do you think everyone in the government thinks 9/11 was an inside job.

If not who do you think specifically was responsible?

Just curious, not to go off topic.

I wouldn't have thought anyone from the US government was explicitly involved in 9/11. It's impossible to say. If there was a 'black ops' element to it then it will all have been carried out by intelligence agencies with the knowledge of very few members of the government, and no direct involvement so that they always have plausible deniability. It's impossible to say precisely what happened as so much of the evidence was either destroyed or suppressed, and the official investigation was greatly delayed, poorly funded, and then set up not to find out anything incriminating.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
One last question on 9/11, how do you think the towers came down?

Pancake theory, explosives, cold fusion or (other)?

.......... wrote: Sorry, it's impossible for me to say. I try not to engage in speculation. As far as I'm aware the 'pankcake theory' has been completely discredited and dropped.

www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm
NIST instead suggest that there was some sort of incredible and unheralded form of column failure. No-one really knows because no-one looked at the real conditions in the building. It is very hard for me to accept that some of the easily observable characteristics of the 'collapses' were caused by column failure.

The Apprentice wrote:
So tell me about Francophone Africa !!

Algeria is the regional superpower who do not like the French. There intel wing has radicals much in the same vain as Pakistain. They have the fingers in many pies within the region. For the last 20yrs conflict has been the norm in the region. French intervention is nothing new, in fact I was part of intervention x2 in the 80s..
Seems people only think of the now and not previous encounters spanning decades
2 weeks ago talking to a President and special advisers, this week chatting with internet Presidents who know what policy is being decided
I'm all ears for people who have been to the Francophone countries and have spoken to people on the ground. Not some copy and paste shit from various sites with a clear anti American/NATO agenda

entrangermercenary1 wrote:
Wow!

How impressive!

I know if I'd done something that impressive I'd definitely get loads of pics taken....

entrangermercenary1 wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting they would intervene purely on humanitarian grounds?

Space Bandit wrote: I've actually rethought my opinion on the subject. Bullingdon boy Cameron just wants to help out the poor Africans, you know, like he helps out the poor people in Britain. The man is all heart, and I think the least we can do is completely accept everything he says without question. When he says that there will be a war in Africa lasting decades, as he has recently, we should salute his bravery and honesty.

It's got nothing to do with controlling resources. Or the vast banking-military-industrial architecture that exists. It's not about imperialism. They're just trying to save the Africans. I think it's incredibly noble of them to waste all that billion dollar technology on a project that won't benefit rich, powerful, vested interests in the slightest. It's exactly the same selfless, humanitarian reasons that the US have military bases in 135 nations. There's nothing that helps a country out more than a US military base within your borders. Or why this has all happened:

IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.
YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.
URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.
GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Army & Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.
IRAQ 1963 Command operation CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Army & Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gassing of captured ship Mayagüez, 28 troops die when copter shot down.
ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions. 241 Marines killed when Shi'a rebel bombs barracks.
GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple Qaddafi gov't.
BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war, defending reflagged tankers and shooting down civilian jet.
LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ 1990-91 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
IRAQ 1991-2003 Bombing, naval No-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions
LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI 1994 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Troops at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed.
MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into combat missions in Sulu Archipelago, west of Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.
LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader.
HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines & Army land after right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, bombing, covert operation CIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on Pakistani Mehsud network.
SOMALIA 2006-? Missiles, naval, troops, command operation Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government; AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents.
SYRIA 2008 Troops Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians
YEMEN 2009-? Missiles, command operation Cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Yemeni military assaults on rebels
LIBYA 2011-? Bombing, missiles, command operation NATO coordinates air strikes and missile attacks against Qaddafi government during uprising by rebel army.

God bless NATO, God bless the UN, and God bless the Anglo-American establishment. I hope the war against 'al-Qaeda' goes on for the rest of my life (which it probably will).

entrangermercenary1 wrote:
R U Serious entrangermercenary?

twake_up_bomb wrote:
So are you saying OBL was not a leader of a specific group of Islamic militants we can call Al Qaeda (without getting bogged down in the semantics of that term's broad usage) with its own agenda amid all the other Islamic groups? That would be a fairly remarkable assertion.

I'd agree "Al Qaeda" has become fairly meaningless with the way it's bandied about to mean anyone and everyone who's an Islamic militant in whatever sense, but isn't lumping OBL's group in with all the other Islamic militants essentially doing the same thing?

I'd disagree the US fostered the mentality. I'd say they helped people when it was convenient to help them, but I don't think they wanted to encourage people into an Islamic militant mentality as such.

I've never heard of the other one, but Ghost Wars is a book I've kinda been intending to pick up at some point. From reviews I've seen, I was under the impression it sees OBL's Al Qaeda very much as a specific group and castigates the administration administration for not effectively pursuing them. Is this not the case?

There is no singular specific terrorist network called al-Qaeda. There never has been, and there never will be. Even the name al-Qaeda was not even invented by the supposed perpetrators of this group. So by definition bin Laden is not part of this group because it doesn't exist. Bin Laden was part of the Mujahideen which did exist.

In the video, Clinton is talking about Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is where 'al-Qaeda' comes from, as the term was never even used until quite recently, and the two areas were the early focus of the 'War on Terror'. As I say, the US armed, funded, radicalised and trained people in relation to this, some of the key figures that they later cited as being key 'al-Qaeda' members, and this went on within the borders of the United States for a decade at least. Bin Laden was also involved with Maktab al-Khadamat, who were quite openly funded, trained, etc, within the borders of the United States over many years.

Of course, there are Islamic militants in the world, but in my view the US foreign policy has created more of those than would otherwise have existed, particularly given the number of times they've overthrown liberal, reformatory governments.

None of this has anything to do with US foreign policy, which is driven by banking, military and corporate interests, not ideology. It's merely a convenient reason to carry out.

Well do you want photos ? .

.......... wrote:
So when was the last time you were in downtown Nairobi and had a chat with the locals. If you see the state of the roads ,pavements, the fucking amount of traffic on roads that need a serious upgrade you would understand the concerns of the people. The seucurity on every shop with wands, all hotels with security that tbh at best is for boy scouts.
But im sure you have the finger on the pulse