What the hell has that got to do with anything? America give enough support to Al Qaeda, they just gave them weapons and air support in Libya. America is supporting terrorist groups in Iran and Syria. It was the CIA and Saudi Arabia that created Al Qaeda. What a lame excuse for starting a war of aggression and killing so many people. Even Hitler had better justification than that for invading Poland.
There is no connection between AQ and CIA. In fact, OBL belonged to a faction that refused CIA support during the Soviet-Afghan War, and thought it should have only been fought by Muslims. If you knew anything about the war in Afghanistan, then you would know that the US was the supporter of the faction during the war that became the Northern Alliance. And the other force fighting the Soviets after the war was over formed the Taliban. Two vastly different philosophies, 2 vastly different sources of supply. And both so strongly opposed to each other that a civil war broke out once the war was over. Oh, and most of the Taliban support was from Pakistan, not Saudi Arabia. So how about some facts, and not horribly stale propaganda that is horribly wrong?
Since 2005 this system is working to get regime change in Iran, they build up the propaganda for the American people, and when in their MSM polls enough people agree they begin their next invasion. And if this will not work they let the regime in Iran take agressive steps (so they have an excuse to start a military campagne against Iran) All former regimes thoughout the Middle East were caused by the West over the past fourty years, by financing them and deliver them weapons. Now these regimes have to be changed via regime change because the world is heading towards a global empire. Regime change is needed to get the masses behind a new installed regime. Egypt was a clear example of a by the system caused revolution, the new regime is the same as the last regime (same elite, same military top, same state tv with the same imperialistic colours red/grey/black) Until so far we've seen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Egypt, next are Syria and Iran, because all arabic/muslim countries need to be regime changed, all countries need to join the Arabic League (a union) In the western countries there is no possibility of regime change by an invasion, so they do this via fear propaganda, degrading economy/system (chaos) and voting. This world (especially the Middle Eastern countries and Western countries) is heading for a global empire, and empire leads to war (all empires did) They cause two opposite systems or antagonistic ideologies, or cause conflict between two religions (Islam/Christianity) one in the west, one in the Middle East, and cause war, same was done between the Sovjet Union and the German empire, union or empire is almost the same (unions are joined one day to create an empire), an organized, totalitarian and militarized system (two empires/unions, two antagonistic ideologies at war) Mass propaganda: They keep the focus on Iran, they keep the bad news from Syria in the MS news. All done for the masses in the Middle East and the West. It's all about empire building (empires need the power of masses on their side, this process is going on since the turn of the century, the new millenium)
Interesting bit of editing there. However, it might be nice if you told the entire and true story. Yes, the CIA supported Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. And that is no secret. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was also a member of what was the Northern Alliance. Not the Taliban. In fact, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was the President of Afghanistan, and the leader of the opposition forces when the Taliban overthrew his government and took over Afghanistan. In fact, after the Taliban took over, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar fled the country and lived for the next 6 years in exile. Apparently to you, all Afghans are the same. I am sorry, they are not. And other then some interesting quotes that you took entirely without context.
Granny says purt soon we all gonna be holdin' hands an' singin' Yo Ho, Blow the Man Down... Analysts: Iran's Threats in Gulf Unlikely to Lead to War January 06, 2012 - On January 3, 2012 the Pentagon answered an Iranian warning to keep U.S. aircraft carriers out of the Persian Gulf by declaring that American warships will continue regularly scheduled deployments to the strategic waterway See also: US Rescues Iranians Held Hostage by Pirates January 06, 2012 - Personnel from destroyer USS Kidd board Iranian vessel in Arabian Sea, detain 15 pirates using ship as headquarters
So what you are saying is that after 9/11 America backed a founder member of Al Qaeda and close ally of Bin Laden against the Taliban who had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever and weren't involved in international terrorism.
I have no doubt in my mind that it is coming soon, in six or seven months from now the latest. May be even less.
You need to learn a few things I see. The US backed many members of the Mujahideen. However, Al-qaeda was one of many different Mujahadeen organiations. Not the only one, and certainly not the largest or most influential. In fact, during the Afghan-Soviet War, Al-qaeda was one of the smallest and least important. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was the founder of what became known as one of the various Hezb-e Islami groups. In particular, his was known as Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin. He did not found Al-qaeda. These are two different organizations, 2 different goals. You see, this is what ignorant people do. They throw all of the Mujahadeen together and try to make it look like the US and all groups supported the Taliban and Al-qaeda. In fact, they were quite deadly enemies, as was seen in the Afghan Civil War. There you saw native Afghan groups trying to form a new Afghan Republic (Northern Alliance was the largest of these groups), against those that wanted to see an Islamic ruled government (Taliban), and with a large number of foreign fighters providing support and supplies (Taliban, Al-qaeda). Try not to confuse the two groups and mix them up together, it only makes you look foolish to those that actually know and understand the differences. Think about this. If he was such a strong supporter, then why was he the Prime Minister of Afghanistan when the Taliban took over, and forced to flee into exile? This person you claim was a founder of Al-qaeda and a supporter of the Taliban spent years fighting them. All of your claims simply fall apart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_alliance
This will never happen. We have to much money in the military as it is even when making cuts. The military represents 5% of the USA GDP and that will not go below 5% for quite some time, anymore, and our economy will be to military based, so in the event of no more fights to pick could have a crippling effect.
But that isn't what it says in the link I posted. It says he worked closely with Bin Laden during the 1990s.
"when US support had ceased". The basics behind this are nothing new or surprising to anybody. If you had seen the movie "Charlie Wilson's War", you would have seen how all US aid basically ended with the end of the Afghan-Soviet War. You keep going and going in circles here, but have yet to show that the US supported Al-qaeda and the Taliban as you originally tried to claim. Why not just give it up? It really has nothing to do with the topic of this thread at all.
No I didn't, I said America supported, helped create Al Qaeda and posted the links to prove it. I've never said they supported the Taliban, you made that up.
I think we did support the Taliban up until about May 2001. They were acceptable because initially they brought some semblance of law and order to Afghanistan after the collapse of the Soviet installed government. They stopped the truck hijackings and the rapes.. eradicated poppy production.
It was probably the eradication of poppy production turned America against them, the CIA couldn't take the cut in funding. America certainly re-introduced the poppy pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ed quick when they took over and now, for the first time in Afghan history, they are exporting heroin not just opium.
So both America and Britain are run by psycho paths? Yet they are two of the most successful countries in the world? And these psycho paths were elected by their people in their countries. This makes no sense. Their leaders aren't always the best, but their not psycho paths. You want a psycho path look at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, and Kim Jong-Un. Countries that are run by psycho paths include Iran, North Korea, and China. And all of the tiny African nations that last about 5 years from the ruler of a dictator. Certainly not America and Britain.
It makes perfect sense. Around 6% of the population are psychopaths, they have no empathy, no conscience, no feelings of remorse, all the qualities needed to get to the top in politics. They can learn they aren't like others early in life and learn how to fake normality, fake emotions more convincingly than the real thing. The condition is often hereditary, a Bush senior can teach the Bush junior how to feign being normal. Some of the most charming charismatic people in history have been psychopaths, the people of Germany just loved Hitler. Those who can't feel love yearn power, if you can believe it of Korea, China and Africa why can't you believe it of our own countries?
This is a serious and sobering question. I'm surprised this thread hasn't garnered more responses. Seems folks would rather discuss hypotheticals than deal with the sobering reality. I believe an airstrike against Iran's nuclear facilities will happen. Not might happen, not could happen...!ut will happen. This will be joint U.S./Israeli strike and will include the B-2 stealth bomber loaded out with the 30,000lb. Massive Ordnance Penetrator conventional bunker buster bomb. The question then becomes...what will the consequences be? Will Iran retaliate, will terrost attacks escalate, will Heabollah retaliate? Will these airstrikes escalate into a protracted ground war? The airstrikes are inevitable, so why then are we paring down the military to an almost hollow force level established in the Post-Vietam war era. If indeed a protracted ground war becomes established shouldn't all contingencies be therefore planned in advance? One personal's opinion anyway, and maybe my rather horrific worst case scenario will not come to fruition. War is an ugly thing...humanity seems to never tire of it. Each generation pays it's dues to the Gods of War without ever truly learning from ot. But I digress... God Bless and Lord forgive us, we know not what we do...
Sorry for the typos, texting from my mobile...hopefully they didn't detract from the message. More interested in other's responses to my opinion that war with Iran, on some level...is inevitable.
I am hoping this will not happen. I am not thrilled with the prospect of Iran going nuclear, but I think the consequences of an attack would be worse. We are surviving with North Korea being nuclear, with Pakistan being nuclear, we can survive Iran being nuclear. I in favor of all non-military options to prevent it, but I think such an attack is likely to fail in its objective, and more importantly, it would strengthen the Iranian regime.
The reality is that Iran needs nuclear power to expand their electrical grid, Israeli paranoia notwithstanding.
