• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

War For Profit?

braindrain said:
What we asked for was evidence that the CIA created AQ. You provided zero links to back up that claim. And no one here is claiming that the Mujaheddin and AQ did not have some bleed over. Please stop trying to put words in other people's mouths. It's rather dishonest.
This is the real world not some Hollywood wood movie where there are clear good guys and bad guys. In the real world the CIA must sometimes work with less then perfect people. Sometimes the people they work with go one to do bad things. The CIA can either accept that sometimes they will be forced to work with people who are less then perfect in order to accomplish the mission given to them by our government or they can sit in Langley and do nothing.
Click to expand...

Braindrain:

I'm not putting words into anyone's mouth. Al Qaeda was born on Hekmatyar's territory and trained there into a coherent organisation concurrent with the CIA spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the Hekmatyar organisation. Unlike much of the CIA funding of the Mujahideen operations in Afghanistan, where the funding was done indirectly through the Pakistani ISI, in the Hekmatyar case, a large proportion of the CIA funding was direct and bypassed the ISI. Also the bulk of this funding was late in the game and about a third of it seems to have occurred after the 1989 withdrawal of the Soviet military from Afghanistan, continuing up to 1991 inclusive. The concurrence of direct CIA funding to the Hekmatyar organisation by the CIA with the birth and growth of al Qaeda is an interesting synchronicity. While remembering that correlation or concurrence do not necessarily mean causation, the available facts (and I use the word 'facts' cautiously, given the clandestine nature of this topic) lead an impartial observer to at least consider the theory that the CIA, through the Hekmatyar organisation proxy, did play a role in the birth and growth of al Qaeda. I have presented evidence that this may be the case. If you don't believe that the evidence is sufficient then fine. But Fledermaus and now you yourself have asked for evidence that the CIA played a role in the creation of al Qaeda and I have provided some. Nothing more. I don't know what the answer is, but I am not yet willing to dismiss the possibility of CIA complicity in the creation of al Qaeda at this point. This is not intellectual dishonesty but rather openminded objectivity which leads me to this position that the case is not yet closed in either direction.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
braindrain said:
The reason the article ignored that AQ was created by the CIA is because it is nothing more then CT nonsense. Just like the rest of your post. As well as virtually all of the BS you spew on this site.
This site has a section dedicated just for you and your fellow CTers. Why do you all have to pollute the rest of the forum with your garbage. Why can't you stick to the section designed for fairytale nonsense and spare us you delusions
Click to expand...

The CT is the balderash that the USA is the World's Policeman and it is spreading freedom, democracy, liberty, and Justice for all. The USA invades to control extraction resurces for USA Corporations. Subsidy, a/k/a Corporate Welfare.
"conquering national economies and turning them over to ‘foreign investors,’"
That's the real World.
 
DaveFagan said:
The CT is the balderash that the USA is the World's Policeman and it is spreading freedom, democracy, liberty, and Justice for all. The USA invades to control extraction resurces for USA Corporations. Subsidy, a/k/a Corporate Welfare.
"conquering national economies and turning them over to ‘foreign investors,’"
That's the real World.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for you to prove your claim that the CIA created AQ. Why are you running from that.
 
braindrain said:
Still waiting for you to prove your claim that the CIA created AQ. Why are you running from that.
Click to expand...

Already proven. Mujihadeen is AQ.
 
DaveFagan said:
Already proven. Mujihadeen is AQ.
Click to expand...
Yes you did prove that you have no idea what you are talking about. In fact you do that repeatedly on this site.
 
DaveFagan said:
Already proven. Mujihadeen is AQ.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The Mujahideen were all Afghan groups. They were fighting for their homeland, and other than material support (money and weapons) they did not care much for foreigners working with their forces.

The term they themselves used for most of the foreigners were the "Afghan Arabs". They were used by the Afghans for equipment, but as "fighters", they were generally dismissive (if not hostile) to their participation.

Most of the Mujahideen groups later formed into a coalition that became known as the Northern Alliance. They were in direct opposition to the groups who more openly welcomed the "Afghan Arabs" into their groups. The second band of groups later formed into what we now know as the Taliban.

The more you know...
 
Oozlefinch said:
Wrong.

The Mujahideen were all Afghan groups. They were fighting for their homeland, and other than material support (money and weapons) they did not care much for foreigners working with their forces.

The term they themselves used for most of the foreigners were the "Afghan Arabs". They were used by the Afghans for equipment, but as "fighters", they were generally dismissive (if not hostile) to their participation.

Most of the Mujahideen groups later formed into a coalition that became known as the Northern Alliance. They were in direct opposition to the groups who more openly welcomed the "Afghan Arabs" into their groups. The second band of groups later formed into what we now know as the Taliban.

The more you know...
Click to expand...

Oozlefinch:

Afghanistan's mujahideen were an exceptionally diverse lot, including ethnic Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Tajiks and others. Some were Shi'a, sponsored by Iran, while most factions were made up of Sunni Muslims. In addition to the Afghan fighters, Muslims from other countries volunteered to join the mujahideen ranks. Much smaller numbers of Arabs (like Osama bin Laden), fighters from Chechnya, and others rushed to the aid of Afghanistan. After all, the Soviet Union was officially an atheist nation, inimical to Islam, and the Chechens had their own anti-Soviet grievances.
Click to expand...

From:

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-mujahideen-of-afghanistan-195373

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Oozlefinch:

From:

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-mujahideen-of-afghanistan-195373

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

And where does that differ from exactly what I said?

Notice, "sponsored" is not the same thing as "traveled to and fought with". Iran was not sending anybody, they were to busy in their life-and-death struggle with Iraq at the time.

And your very quote says the following:

Much smaller numbers of Arabs (like Osama bin Laden), fighters from Chechnya, and others rushed to the aid of Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

The very "Afghan Arabs" I mentioned earlier. I did specifically say that they were there, and your own reference calls their participation "much smaller".

So absolutely nothing in contradiction to what I said, so thanks for backing my position.
 
Oozlefinch said:
And where does that differ from exactly what I said?

Notice, "sponsored" is not the same thing as "traveled to and fought with". Iran was not sending anybody, they were to busy in their life-and-death struggle with Iraq at the time.

And your very quote says the following:



The very "Afghan Arabs" I mentioned earlier. I did specifically say that they were there, and your own reference calls their participation "much smaller".

So absolutely nothing in contradiction to what I said, so thanks for backing my position.
Click to expand...

Oozlefinch:

You said:

The Mujahideen were all Afghan groups.
Click to expand...

That is not true. The Mujahideen were a heterogeneous group from the start including many nationalities from outside of Afghanistan, including Arab foreign fighters, albeit in small numbers for the Arabs. The numbers of Arabs grew as time went on and by 1985 there were considerable numbers of them, though again never a dominant contingent.

As posted above it is the relationship between the CIA, the Hekmatyar Group and the nascent Al-Qaeda which gives some credence to the notion that the CIA was a contributor to the creation of the al Qaeda organization between 1985 and 1988. French and British sources seem to confirm these coincidences but there is no declarative source which has yet made the connection clear. So the door is still open to the CIA's role in the birth of al Qaeda.

The Northern Alliance had many non-Afghans serving in it too. Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Turkomen were all well represented in the alliance.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Oozlefinch:

You said:



That is not true. The Mujahideen were a heterogeneous group from the start including many nationalities from outside of Afghanistan, including Arab foreign fighters, albeit in small numbers for the Arabs. The numbers of Arabs grew as time went on and by 1985 there were considerable numbers of them, though again never a dominant contingent.

As posted above it is the relationship between the CIA, the Hekmatyar Group and the nascent Al-Qaeda which gives some credence to the notion that the CIA was a contributor to the creation of the al Qaeda organization between 1985 and 1988. French and British sources seem to confirm these coincidences but there is no declarative source which has yet made the connection clear. So the door is still open to the CIA's role in the birth of al Qaeda.

The Northern Alliance had many non-Afghans serving in it too. Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Turkomen were all well represented in the alliance.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Quite a leap there....
 
Fledermaus said:
Quite a leap there....
Click to expand...

Fledermaus:

No leap there. The facts simply do not support Oozlefinch's assertion and the facts neither prove nor disprove CIA complicity in the rise of al Qaeda at this time. The case cannot be made in either direction with any degree of certainty. If you objectively follow the evidence then you can reasonably conclude that both positions are possible but neither is yet proved.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus:

No leap there. The facts simply do not support Oozlefinch's assertion and the facts neither prove nor disprove CIA complicity in the rise of al Qaeda at this time. The case cannot be made in either direction with any degree of certainty. If you objectively follow the evidence then you can reasonably conclude that both positions are possible but neither is yet proved.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

A leap of "Jump the Grand Canyon" proportions....

Common of CT folk.
 
Fledermaus said:
A leap of "Jump the Grand Canyon" proportions....

Common of CT folk.
Click to expand...

Fledermaus:

A quick review of some of your recent posts indicates you may have an anti-CT fetish and that you tend to label many arguments with which you disagree as CT tripe. While I agree that many CT advocates can be deeply self-deluded and impossibly biased in favour of their pet theories, that is not the case for all who challenge the orthodoxy of the recieved wisdom of establishment sources. Indeed much of human progress has come from thinkers and writers challenging the agreed-upon naratives of their time and enraging the authoritarian hammers of orthodoxy like yourself (perhaps). Great strides in Arts and Science have come from non-conventional thinkers who have been branded as crackpots and seditious trouble-makers by their establishment peers. Keeping an open mind to unconventional lines of argument and maintaining intellectual humility are arguably essential if we are to progress down the road of knowledge to greater wisdom. I fear in your case that you may have closed too many doors and are filtering out reasonable critiques along with CT-chaff. While CT advocates can be deluded, so can their most zealous adversaries be likewise deluded by convictions which blind men's eyes to possibilities and harden their hearts to other points of view; until they create for themselves an intellectual prison from which they cannot escape. I hope that is not the case with you, for intellectual freedom is a cherished gift which I value deeply.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus:

A quick review of some of your recent posts indicates you may have an anti-CT fetish and that you tend to label many arguments with which you disagree as CT tripe. While I agree that many CT advocates can be deeply self-deluded and impossibly biased in favour of their pet theories, that is not the case for all who challenge the orthodoxy of the recieved wisdom of establishment sources. Indeed much of human progress has come from thinkers and writers challenging the agreed-upon naratives of their time and enraging the authoritarian hammers of orthodoxy like yourself (perhaps). Great strides in Arts and Science have come from non-conventional thinkers who have been branded as crackpots and seditious trouble-makers by their establishment peers. Keeping an open mind to unconventional lines of argument and maintaining intellectual humility are arguably essential if we are to progress down the road of knowledge to greater wisdom. I fear in your case that you may have closed too many doors and are filtering out reasonable critiques along with CT-chaff. While CT advocates can be deluded, so can their most zealous adversaries be likewise deluded by convictions which blind men's eyes to possibilities and harden their hearts to other points of view; until they create for themselves an intellectual prison from which they cannot escape. I hope that is not the case with you, for intellectual freedom is a cherished gift which I value deeply.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Well written. And I agree with the tone, the content and the intent of the post.

But we are far apart in the idea that the US created/supported/paid/was buddies to/had beers with Al Qaeda.
 
Fledermaus said:
Well written. And I agree with the tone, the content and the intent of the post.

But we are far apart in the idea that the US created/supported/paid/was buddies to/had beers with Al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

Fledermaus:

I do not know if the CIA had a hand in the creation of al Qaeda and as I stated above, i am agnostic on the issue at the present time. Others requested some evidence and I presented some. That's all. So our positions are not as far apart as you may imagine.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus:

I do not know if the CIA had a hand in the creation of al Qaeda and as I stated above, i am agnostic on the issue at the present time. Others requested some evidence and I presented some. That's all. So our positions are not as far apart as you may imagine.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Fair enough...

I stand corrected.

And I retract my accusation of CTing.
 
Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus:

A quick review of some of your recent posts indicates you may have an anti-CT fetish and that you tend to label many arguments with which you disagree as CT tripe. While I agree that many CT advocates can be deeply self-deluded and impossibly biased in favour of their pet theories, that is not the case for all who challenge the orthodoxy of the recieved wisdom of establishment sources. Indeed much of human progress has come from thinkers and writers challenging the agreed-upon naratives of their time and enraging the authoritarian hammers of orthodoxy like yourself (perhaps). Great strides in Arts and Science have come from non-conventional thinkers who have been branded as crackpots and seditious trouble-makers by their establishment peers. Keeping an open mind to unconventional lines of argument and maintaining intellectual humility are arguably essential if we are to progress down the road of knowledge to greater wisdom. I fear in your case that you may have closed too many doors and are filtering out reasonable critiques along with CT-chaff. While CT advocates can be deluded, so can their most zealous adversaries be likewise deluded by convictions which blind men's eyes to possibilities and harden their hearts to other points of view; until they create for themselves an intellectual prison from which they cannot escape. I hope that is not the case with you, for intellectual freedom is a cherished gift which I value deeply.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Yes, extremely well written. And I commend you for having elicited such a fine statement from Maus as he made in #44.
 
Evilroddy said:
Oozlefinch:

You said:



That is not true. The Mujahideen were a heterogeneous group from the start including many nationalities from outside of Afghanistan, including Arab foreign fighters, albeit in small numbers for the Arabs. The numbers of Arabs grew as time went on and by 1985 there were considerable numbers of them, though again never a dominant contingent.

As posted above it is the relationship between the CIA, the Hekmatyar Group and the nascent Al-Qaeda which gives some credence to the notion that the CIA was a contributor to the creation of the al Qaeda organization between 1985 and 1988. French and British sources seem to confirm these coincidences but there is no declarative source which has yet made the connection clear. So the door is still open to the CIA's role in the birth of al Qaeda.

The Northern Alliance had many non-Afghans serving in it too. Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Turkomen were all well represented in the alliance.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

I never said that they were all Afghans, I said they were all Afghan Groups. Context is very important.

As in, the groups were predominantly Afghani nationals, led almost exclusively by Afghani nationals. Yes, some Arabs were mixed in, but they were generally looked down upon as mercenaries, not as soldiers fighting for their homeland.

And then you take a sharp turn right into CT nonsense.

The CIA was primarily sending money to the Shura-e Nazar. That was an alliance of roughly 130 commanders primarily in the Northern and Central areas of the country.

Now here is where your coprolite completely falls apart. You specifically bring up funding "Hekmatyar Group" as proof of the CIA funding AQ. You could not be more wrong there.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is the leader of the group known as Hezb-e Islami today. And he was Prime Minister when the Taliban took over and he fled into exile.

AQ at that time was essentially the intelligence arm of the Taliban. So if they were so close that money to one is proof of money to another, why were they attacking their own?

Obviously they were not, and your attempt to connect various spiderwebs is a complete failure.

No, the CIA had nothing to do with the creation of AQ. That is Conspiracy Theory coprolite, and belongs down in that area, not in here.
 
Oozlefinch:

Please review my posts #24, #26 and #43 above. I do not know if the CIA had a hand in the creation of al-Qaeda. I was simply providing citations when asked to. I am agnostic on the connections between the CIA and al-Qaeda. But that doesn't mean the topic cannot be discussed outside of the CT realm. It is a matter of historical and civic importance if such connections can eventually be proven so discussion is valid even if such discussion causes some readers exasperation and anger. So if you don't want to read such stuff then don't, but you have no right to demand that others be silent except in the CT threads. These are legitimate questions of unresolved matters of public interest. History and folklore don't fit into the convenient pigeon-holes you seem to wish to assign them.

Coprolites are fascinating and we have learned much about palaeontology from studying them. And the CIA or al-Qaeda is not old enough to have fossilized yet. :)

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Getting back to the topic of this thread President Trump is reportedly being lobbied by powerful interests into considering ways to extend and expand the scope of the war in Afghanistan in order exploit an estimated one-trillion dollars in mineral wealth there. Military mercantilism is possibly as strong as it ever was.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/world/asia/afghanistan-trump-mineral-deposits.html

Cheers,
Evilroddy.
 
Strong as it ever was, and probably even stronger than it has been.
 
Evilroddy said:
Oozlefinch:

Please review my posts #24, #26 and #43 above. I do not know if the CIA had a hand in the creation of al-Qaeda
Click to expand...

I have, and it is once again similar nonsense.

"Oh we do not know, therefore it is possible". That is typical CT doublespeak, and it is lame at the best.

Oh, we do not know if Donald Trump poisoned Hillary Clinton and sent alien brain signals to have her throw the election, we have not seen al the proof yet.

Typical "throwing out the claim while trying to appear reasonable", typically a fence sitter CT, or somebody who wants to be taken at least somewhat seriously. Myself, I only deal in cold hard facts. The minute anybody gives the whine "I do not know if...", all I hear is "I am throwing around bushels of bull**** because I have no proof for my bat**** crazy nonsense".

Heck, I do not know if you had any involvement in the plot to assassinate Hitler. But I am keeping my mind open unless I see absolute proof that you were never involved in any way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom