Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Commandos and Special Operations Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Hey if the UK & America have the best Special Op's Forces - Where Osama?
human7    8/12/2004 10:18:14 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT
Horsesoldier    RE:info vs. More DisiInfo - Talk for yourself - GV- Shek   4/2/2006 4:25:58 PM
>>Sorry. I forgot to precise that I posted this link to react to this: << And forgot to point out that your source is incredibly suspect and the origin point for such science-based and agenda-free claims as the intriguing, albeit factually fanciful, claims as that the US had prior warning of the South Asia tsunami but opted not to warn anyone. If they ever run out of globalisation research projects, they can always get a job grinding axes for Michael Moore and the Film Actors Guild . . . In any case, I'd put their research (such as it is) and claims (amusing as they are) somewhere near Holocaust denial in terms of legitimacy. I'm still eagerly waiting for you to connect the dots on this pipeline issue for me, since A) the pipeline does not exist B) any function it might notionally provide from Turkmenistan's perspective have been handled by other pipelines running west C) the only people who still seem especially interested in the pipeline are the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan who'd love a new source of hard currency. In short it's relevance for US policy in Afghanistan, during or after the Cold War, is a red herring for the uneducated and uninformed tossed out by third-rate "researchers" and "documentarians" who subscribe to that curiously secular religion of Single Actor Theory (i.e. all things, fair and foul, flow forth from the only single source of efficacy and action in this world, namely the US government). Nothing more.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:info vs. More DisiInfo - Talk for yourself - GV- Shek   4/2/2006 5:39:17 PM
GV shek torpedoed you fair and square on that point. to accuse the americans of looking that far forward flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
 
Quote    Reply

The Lizard King    Shek / HorseSoldier   4/4/2006 12:31:06 PM
Simplified Version: During the Afgan/Soviet War, the Mujahideen Fighters (both Afgans & Foreign Muslims) were significantly financed, armed, and trained by America. After the Soviets were expelled, Afghanistan became a training ground for Afghan & Foreign terrorists. Who do you think ran these camps? Were do you think graduates of these training camps went? America invaded Afghanistan with relative ease due to the fact the CIA & American Operatives had already been there before.
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:Shek / HorseSoldier   4/4/2006 3:38:52 PM
Simplified Version: During the Afgan/Soviet War, the Mujahideen Fighters (both Afgans & Foreign Muslims) were significantly financed, armed, and trained by America. Simplified answer: False. The US financed and armed Afghans, not foreigners. Almost all training was conducted by the ISI AFAIK, who were trained by the CIA. After the Soviets were expelled, Afghanistan became a training ground for Afghan & Foreign terrorists. Who do you think ran these camps? Were do you think graduates of these training camps went? Simplified answer: Wrong, you're missing quite a few years where AQ found sanctuary in Sudan. After they were booted out of Sudan and the Taliban came to power, then AQ became based out of Afghanistan. AQ isn't an Afghan run organization, and I'm still waiting for your list of significant Afghan members of AQ. America invaded Afghanistan with relative ease due to the fact the CIA & American Operatives had already been there before. Simplified answer: False again! CIA operatives worked from Pakistan, and AFAIK, the CIA SAD team members were completely different than those that had worked out of Afghanistan a decade and a half eariler. However, I do know that the Taliban were never able to defeat the Northern Alliance and eliminate them from Afghanistan. Mix in GPS, JDAMs, ODAs, CCTs, $$$s, stir, and serve, and then you have overwhelming combat force against a weak army in a fractured society. My guess is that that is why there was overwhelming success against the Taliban. Lastly, I'm still waiting on your list of skills that AQ learned from the CIA. When is that going to be available?
 
Quote    Reply

The Lizard King    RE:Shek Blowback   4/5/2006 9:16:39 AM
"The US financed and armed Afghans, not foreigners." I would love to know how you can make this statement with utmost conviction. You are wrong on this one. They Financed & Armed the Mujahedeen. --------------------- "AQ became based out of Afghanistan. AQ isn't an Afghan run organization: Does not matter if the Organization is an Afghan run organization per se. The fact remains there was extensive collaboration between the Taliban and AQ. wrong on this one. AQ trained in Afghanistan. --------------------- "False again! CIA operatives worked from Pakistan, and AFAIK" Okay shek, there were no CIA Operatives and American Advisors in Afghan, if you say so. --------------------- "the CIA SAD team members were completely different than those that had worked out of Afghanistan a decade and a half eariler" The blue print was there & the contacts had been made. http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2005/0705charlie.htm --------------------- “I'm still waiting on your list of skills that AQ learned from the CIA.” “CIA operations officers helped Pakistani trainers establish schools for the mujahideen in secure communications, guerrilla warfare, urban sabotage and heavy weapons. "Although the CIA claimed that the purpose was to attack military targets, mujahideen trained in these techniques, and using chemical and electronic-delay bomb timers supplied by the U.S., carried out numerous car bombings and assassination attacks in Kabul itself.” http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html
 
Quote    Reply

shek    Conspiracy Theories . . .   4/5/2006 10:15:18 AM
I would love to know how you can make this statement with utmost conviction. You are wrong on this one. They Financed & Armed the Mujahedeen. Well, I guess if you don’t believe the Al Zawahiri, Milt Bearden, or Marc Sagemen, three primary sources that cover both the AQ side and the CIA side, then maybe you could believe that the opposite is true. Also, there are numerous other primary sources cited in this http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/516-2029.asp”> post . However, I’m not swayed by your articles published by the International Socialist Review nor the IPS, neither of which is footnoted or contains primary source quotes. Predictably, your socialist source takes a strong anti-western and anti-US stand. Do you support this position and all of the premises in the article? As far as the IPS article, the only information it provides is its assertion with zero proof to back up its assertion other than money went into Afghanistan. This type of argument may work for a grade school history class, but I think we’re a little more advanced than that. Does not matter if the Organization is an Afghan run organization per se. The fact remains there was extensive collaboration between the Taliban and AQ. wrong on this one [sic]. AQ trained in Afghanistan. What collaboration actually happened? I’d agree that in exchange for sanctuary, OBL provided $$ to assist the Taliban. However, if you are claiming that the Taliban trained AQ, I won’t bite on that one. That is the subject we are discussing, so anything beyond that is extraneous information used to build a strawman. The blue print was there & the contacts had been made. http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2005/0705charlie.htm Please quote me the exact sentences that you feel support this argument. The article, which is short on facts as it is re: the argument we have, doesn’t appear to even make this assertion. “CIA operations officers helped Pakistani trainers establish schools for the mujahideen in secure communications, guerrilla warfare, urban sabotage and heavy weapons. "Although the CIA claimed that the purpose was to attack military targets, mujahideen trained in these techniques, and using chemical and electronic-delay bomb timers supplied by the U.S., carried out numerous car bombings and assassination attacks in Kabul itself.” http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html Once again, you provide no linkage that demonstrate that these skills were provided to AQ and that these skills could not have been obtained were it not for the CIA. After all, did the PLO require CIA training to conduct assassinations and build somewhat sophisticated bombs for use in the occupied territories? What specialized training did the perpetrator of the deadliest terrorist attack in the US prior to 9/11 receive? Also, if AQ had these skills from the get go, why did the 1st WTC bombings flounder? Why did it take nearly a decade before they were able to conduct a highly visible operation against a soft target in a Third World Country? If they understood secure commo, why did OBL use sat phones until a combination of a leak and a Tomahawk attack tipped him off that it wasn’t secure? The reality is that none of the skills demonstrated thus far by AQ requires a CIA fingerprint. Document forgery has existed for as long as documents have existed. Internet usage is a globalisation phenomenon that even the CIA hasn’t grasped based on the revelation weeks ago that most of their covert agents could be outed using commercial database mining. IEDs and bomb making have been around for several decades, and the effectiveness of the NLF in turning UXOs into deadly weapons should show you that it doesn’t take secret squirrel techniques to do this. Bottomline, you are grasping at straws to try and make your argument here. I’m sure that there has been some minimal bleedover of skills from Afghan mujahadeen to AQ, but your claims that they are a creation of the CIA is just flat wrong.
 
Quote    Reply

shek    Conspiracy Theories . . . misfire   4/5/2006 10:28:25 AM
I had a bad hyperlink. This one should work . . . I would love to know how you can make this statement with utmost conviction. You are wrong on this one. They Financed & Armed the Mujahedeen. Well, I guess if you don’t believe the Al Zawahiri, Milt Bearden, or Marc Sageman, three primary sources that cover both the AQ side and the CIA side, then maybe you could believe that the opposite is true. Also, there are numerous other primary sources cited in this post - http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/516-2029.asp. However, I’m not swayed by your articles published by the International Socialist Review nor the IPS, neither of which is footnoted or contains primary source quotes. Predictably, your socialist source takes a strong anti-western and anti-US stand. Do you support this position and all of the premises in the article? As far as the IPS article, the only information it provides is its assertion with zero proof to back up its assertion other than money went into Afghanistan. This type of argument may work for a grade school history class, but I think we’re a little more advanced than that. Does not matter if the Organization is an Afghan run organization per se. The fact remains there was extensive collaboration between the Taliban and AQ. wrong on this one [sic]. AQ trained in Afghanistan. What collaboration actually happened? I’d agree that in exchange for sanctuary, OBL provided $$ to assist the Taliban. However, if you are claiming that the Taliban trained AQ, I won’t bite on that one. That is the subject we are discussing, so anything beyond that is extraneous information used to build a strawman. The blue print was there & the contacts had been made. http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2005/0705charlie.htm Please quote me the exact sentences that you feel support this argument. The article, which is short on facts as it is re: the argument we have, doesn’t appear to even make this assertion. “CIA operations officers helped Pakistani trainers establish schools for the mujahideen in secure communications, guerrilla warfare, urban sabotage and heavy weapons. "Although the CIA claimed that the purpose was to attack military targets, mujahideen trained in these techniques, and using chemical and electronic-delay bomb timers supplied by the U.S., carried out numerous car bombings and assassination attacks in Kabul itself.” http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html Once again, you provide no linkage that demonstrate that these skills were provided to AQ and that these skills could not have been obtained were it not for the CIA. After all, did the PLO require CIA training to conduct assassinations and build somewhat sophisticated bombs for use in the occupied territories? What specialized training did the perpetrator of the deadliest terrorist attack in the US prior to 9/11 receive? Also, if AQ had these skills from the get go, why did the 1st WTC bombings flounder? Why did it take nearly a decade before they were able to conduct a highly visible operation against a soft target in a Third World Country? If they understood secure commo, why did OBL use sat phones until a combination of a leak and a Tomahawk attack tipped him off that it wasn’t secure? The reality is that none of the skills demonstrated thus far by AQ requires a CIA fingerprint. Document forgery has existed for as long as documents have existed. Internet usage is a globalisation phenomenon that even the CIA hasn’t grasped based on the revelation weeks ago that most of their covert agents could be outed using commercial database mining. IEDs and bomb making have been around for several decades, and the effectiveness of the NLF in turning UXOs into deadly weapons should show you that it doesn’t take secret squirrel techniques to do this. Bottomline, you are grasping at straws to try and make your argument here. I’m sure that there has been some minimal bleedover of skills from Afghan mujahadeen to AQ, but your claims that they are a creation of the CIA is just flat wrong.
 
Quote    Reply

The Lizard King    RE:Conspiracy Theories . . . misfire   4/6/2006 10:30:10 AM
"However, I’m not swayed by your articles published by the International Socialist Review nor the IPS, neither of which is footnoted or contains primary source quotes." What do you want in a Public Chatroom? Perhaps stolen Laptops from the DOD?
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:Conspiracy Theories . . . misfire   4/6/2006 10:45:00 AM
What do you want in a Public Chatroom? Perhaps stolen Laptops from the DOD? If you want to buy into what some socialist rag has printed, that's fine with. However, it's argument vice CIA training of AQ and CIA funding of AQ is incredible weak at best, with the only evidence being that the CIA supplied sniper rifles (funny that the article never mentioned what type, caliber, etc - why would we provide US equipment that could be traced back to the US instead of some SVDs?). If we did create AQ, then why did it take so long for us to figure who they were and the threat that they posed? Anyways, you never seem to have any answers for the questions that I pose. Maybe because there's no logical answers that would support your conspiracy theory.
 
Quote    Reply

The Lizard King    RE:Conspiracy Theories . . . misfire   4/6/2006 12:32:00 PM
"If we did create AQ" I think we aided, but would not use the word created. We did put the Mujaideen in a position to humiliate a Super Power. ------------------------ "If we did create AQ, then why did it take so long for us to figure who they were and the threat that they posed" 1st. The key figures have been known, the trouble is with the sleeper cells. As America & the World have gone on the offensive, the Terrorist have gone underground. Before 9-11 they were training in the open in Afghanistan. 2nd. Please note, America's problems with Islamic Fundamentalism are a new phenomenon. It appears after the Timothy Mcveigh bombing, Terrorist were like hey, what good idea. ----------------------- "why would we provide US equipment" Because that is what we have; like stingers for instance. Look, some parts of the Articles I cite are crap but not all parts; you are free to attach has much weight to them as you like. ----------------------- “that would support your conspiracy theory” This is were you & I differ. I do not believe this to be a conspiracy, just a byproduct of the Cold War.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics