US to fund Al Queda linked terrorist organizations?

[akaoni 0]

I've posted a link to this story in other threads, but didn't get much of a response. If even 10% of what the Seymour Hersh bombshell article is true, Cheney and co. are playing with fire. I'll post some passages from the story.

 

In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

 

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran.The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

 

One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran. Its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made defiant pronouncements about the destruction of Israel and his country’s right to pursue its nuclear program, and last week its supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on state television that “realities in the region show that the arrogant front, headed by the U.S. and its allies, will be the principal loser in the region.”

 

Sound familiar? Well it should, we took a similar tack when we engaged the Soviets in Afghanistan through proxy fighters some of whom went on to reform as Al Queda. Again Hersh notes:

 

Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools, training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.

 

This also reminds one of some of the back room dealings we found in the Iran Contra scandal of the 80s, and surprise surprise, looks who's involved again:

 

The Bush Administration’s reliance on clandestine operations that have not been reported to Congress and its dealings with intermediaries with questionable agendas have recalled, for some in Washington, an earlier chapter in history. Two decades ago, the Reagan Administration attempted to fund the Nicaraguan contras illegally, with the help of secret arms sales to Iran. Saudi money was involved in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal, and a few of the players back then—notably Prince Bandar and Elliott Abrams—are involved in today’s dealings.

 

This article is long but quite interesting. Here's my basic take on what Hersh has to say. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has opened up a can of worms in the Middle East that the Bush Administration didn't expect, namely, a Sunni-Shiite battle for influence in the Middle East. In the past the Mid-East has been largely dominated by the Sunnis in countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iraq. Shiites are the minority in the region but they are dominant in Iran, and Hezbollah is a strong and growing force in Syria and Lebanon. Iraq essentially acted as a buffer between Iran and the Shiites in the Middle East, but with the post-war Iraq government being dominated by Shiite groups it shifts the balance of power in the region and allows Shiites an opportunity to challenge Sunni dominance.

 

To counter the growing threat of Iranian dominance the Bush administration (apparently largely under Cheney's influence) has decided to try to use covert means to strengthen Sunni radical groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis (both groups are listed on the US's terrorist watch list and have Al Qaeda ties) in order to ward off Hezbollah's growing influence in Lebanon and destabilize Syria.

 

My concerns with this policy are two fold. First, it seems to me that this policy is not going to lead to more stability in the region, but rather add fuel to the fire of sectarian conflict and makes the region more unstable and dangerous. Second, we are aiding the very groups that we have already identified as terrorists who have publicly stated their opposition and hatred for the US. These kind of operations have already come back to bite the hand that fed them. In Afghanistan we used Muslim extremists to fight off the Soviet threat, only to see those same groups reorganize into Al Qaeda after the fall of the Soviet Union and target us. I fear that once again we are choosing a proxy which may be helpful in the short term but very well may be a more dangerous enemy in the future.

 

Finally, I'm not asking anyone to accept Hersh's article as the whole truth. You may view Hersh with suspicion because of his history of criticism of the Bush administration. That's fine. I prefer to view Hersh's writing as a snap shot of some of the inner workings of the Bush administration behind the scenes. He has gotten a glimpse of what's going on, but no doubt there is plenty there that he doesn't know. Nevertheless, he does have access to many contacts in the government, and he has been pretty much right about the potential conflict with Iran every step of the way. If you doubt me, take a look at these articles.

[wiffleball 4,646]

yeah, but - Can Size??

[Uh-huh 0]

I bet the White House speech writers are already polishing W's response(s) to this:

 

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

 

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again"

 

"It's hard work!"

 

"Two wrongs sometimes make a right"

[Boz/BoFan 0]

I guess if you feel we can just sit down and talk to these guys and avoid all this nonsense, then yeah, all the above is a bad idea. Now, if the past 30 yrs has taught you anything, I think you would agree this is not the case. All is fair in love and war, right? You do what you gotta do.

 

But you are against this war, so why are you discussing tactics? Anything that comes from you will have a negative slant. If you are against it, leave it at that. Its kinda like you being against your daughter having sex at 15 but video taping it to watch it later just to get pisssed at it.

[D_House 0]

I guess if you feel we can just sit down and talk to these guys and avoid all this nonsense, then yeah, all the above is a bad idea. Now, if the past 30 yrs has taught you anything, I think you would agree this is not the case. All is fair in love and war, right? You do what you gotta do.

 

But you are against this war, so why are you discussing tactics? Anything that comes from you will have a negative slant. If you are against it, leave it at that. Its kinda like you being against your daughter having sex at 15 but video taping it to watch it later just to get pisssed at it.

 

If the past 30 years have taught us anything, it's that giving guns and money to wackos in the Mideast will come back to bite us in the ass. See: Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

 

If the past 30 years have taught us anything, it's that giving guns and money to wackos in the Mideast will come back to bite us in the ass. See: Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq.

 

We mis diagnosed the problem. I believe we've got it right this time. In the interest of stopping a full scale nuclear battle, sometimes you take the path of risking you may fight a much smaller war 15 yrs from now with the people you are currently dealing with.

[Uh-huh 0]

We mis diagnosed the problem. I believe we've got it right this time. In the interest of stopping a full scale nuclear battle, sometimes you take the path of risking you may fight a much smaller war 15 yrs from now with the people you are currently dealing with.

I forgot these:

"We mis-diagnosed the problem!"

"This time we got it right!"

"Yesterday's enemy is tomorrow's ally!"

 

[Boz/BoFan 0]

I forgot these:

"We mis-diagnosed the problem!"

"This time we got it right!"

"Yesterday's enemy is tomorrow's ally!"

 

 

All valid. And all applicable to every walk of life, Medicine, Stock Market, Real Estate,Relationships etc etc. Why would this be the only area of life for it not to apply? Oh yeah, agenda. My bad.

[Uh-huh 0]

All valid. And all applicable to every walk of life, Medicine, Stock Market, Real Estate,Relationships etc etc. Why would this be the only area of life for it not to apply? Oh yeah, agenda. My bad.

 

Add another:

 

"If you're not with us, you're against us!"

 

Words fail me when trying to describe the sheer hypocrisy of the right wing.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Add another:

 

I run from logical posts! Post one liners with as little detail as possible in the hopes of coming off witty. But I fail, because I back my posts up with nothing.

 

 

I think you are making progress.

[wiffleball 4,646]

Geez, first you biitch b/c the Prez is too inflexible, now you biitch b/c he's changing his tactics, there's no pleasing you guys is there??

[Uh-huh 0]

I think you are making progress.

The 7 classic propagandist's tactics:

• Bandwagon: Pump up the value of 'joining the party/organization/team'.
  
• Card-stacking: Build a highly-biased case for your position.
  
• Glittering generalities: Use power words to evoke emotions.
  
• Name-calling: Denigrating opponents.
  
• Plain folks: Making the leader seem ordinary increases trust and credibility.
  
• Testimonial: The testimony of an independent person is seen as more trustworthy.
  
• Transfer: Associate the leader with trusted others.
  

Boz/bo fan is employing #1, 2, 3 and especially #4.

 

You don't bring any facts to the table, dear.

 

Just opinions.

 

There is a difference between facts and opinions, you know. But in case you don't:

 

Here's a fact: "The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria."

 

This is an opinion: "We mis diagnosed the problem."

 

So is this: "I believe we've got it right this time."

 

There are at least 3 opinions expressed in this classic: "In the interest of stopping a full scale nuclear battle, sometimes you take the path of risking you may fight a much smaller war 15 yrs from now with the people you are currently dealing with."

[Boz/BoFan 0]

The 7 classic propagandist's tactics:

• Bandwagon: Pump up the value of 'joining the party/organization/team'.
  
• Card-stacking: Build a highly-biased case for your position.
  
• Glittering generalities: Use power words to evoke emotions.
  
• Name-calling: Denigrating opponents.
  
• Plain folks: Making the leader seem ordinary increases trust and credibility.
  
• Testimonial: The testimony of an independent person is seen as more trustworthy.
  
• Transfer: Associate the leader with trusted others.
  

Boz/bo fan is employing #1, 2, 3 and especially #4.

 

You don't bring any facts to the table, dear.

 

Just opinions.

 

There is a difference between facts and opinions, you know.

 

At what point did I push you to join the Independent party?

Highly biased? No, just historical reference.

So you consider "applicable" a power word? You need a thesaurus.

And Ive never seen a guy name call more than you. Hold. I'll be using the search function to list all of your name calling. This could take a LONG time.

[Uh-huh 0]

At what point did I push you to join the Independent party?

Highly biased? No, just historical reference.

So you consider "applicable" a power word? You need a thesaurus.

And Ive never seen a guy name call more than you. Hold. I'll be using the search function to list all of your name calling. This could take a LONG time.

Allow me: I'll save you the trouble.

 

"Lemming" is my pejorative of choice when dealing with the likes of you. It's especially appropriate because it happens to be accurate.

 

I have also been known to call you "Bobo/fan". That's an intentional mispelling, btw.

 

Who says I can't employ propagandist's tacticts, too?

 

P.S. Poor little Lemming - is your head spinning yet?

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Are you still using "Lemming"? My god man, that is sooo lame. You probably walk around the office slapping your colleagues on the azz and say " hey guys, did you see that 'Wheres the beef' commercial? Oh ho MAN it was awesome"

 

Phuckin geek.

[Uh-huh 0]

Are you still using "Lemming"? My god man, that is sooo lame. You probably walk around the office slapping your colleagues on the azz and say " hey guys, did you see that 'Wheres the beef' commercial? Oh ho MAN it was awesome"

 

Phuckin geek.

Ah. Propaganda Tactic #4 AND the right-wing debater's trick of changing the subject! In the same post!

 

Nice.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Ah. Propaganda Tactic #4 AND the right-wing debater's trick of changing the subject! In the same post!

 

Nice.

 

Wait, didnt you start by calling me a lemming? Jesus christ you are fuckking crazy bro.

[akaoni 0]

I guess if you feel we can just sit down and talk to these guys and avoid all this nonsense, then yeah, all the above is a bad idea. Now, if the past 30 yrs has taught you anything, I think you would agree this is not the case. All is fair in love and war, right? You do what you gotta do.

 

But you are against this war, so why are you discussing tactics? Anything that comes from you will have a negative slant. If you are against it, leave it at that. Its kinda like you being against your daughter having sex at 15 but video taping it to watch it later just to get pisssed at it.

 

 

I can't help it if this administration screws things up at every turn. Their first step was in the correct direction (in Afghanistan), but thereafter they've gone in the wrong direction again and again. Stablility is the watchword in the middle east, but for some reason each decision they've made has just made the area less stable. Not only do we now have the Sunni extreamists to deal with (apparently we're now even happy to fund them through the Saudis) but as a direct result of our actions, we've given the Shiite's a taste of power that will spur them to create yet more unrest. Now, we're apparently attempting to play up both sides extremist elements to give us an excuse to bomb Iran. They have decided to bring Iran and Syria to the diplomatic table, but in light of Hersh's revelations in the above article, I doubt anything substantive can come of it.

 

But to get back to your point. I posted this article because I hoped it might lead to some kind of interesting discussion on the direction of US policy in the Mid East. Instead, it's just another flame war. Guess I shouldn't have expected anything else...

[Uh-huh 0]

Wait, didnt you start by calling me a lemming? Jesus christ you are fuckking crazy bro.

You don't read your own posts, do you?

 

If you have something substantive to contribute to the thread -- for example, backing up your assertions and opinions with facts -- I'm sure everyone in here will be receptive. For example:

 

After WWII the US felt it was in its best interests to build up Japan, Germany, Italy, etc. Hence, the Marshall plan, which resulted in turning these countries into staunch US allies with strong national governments and robust economies (technically the Marshall Plan only applied to European countries).

 

A factual statement like that one would back up your previous post where you said (I paraphrase) "Sometimes you have to deal with your enemies".

 

However, if you're just going to do the idiotic right-wingnut shtick, then people will respond in kind.

[kpbuckeye 2]

You don't read your own posts, do you?

 

If you have something substantive to contribute to the thread -- for example, backing up your assertions and opinions with facts -- I'm sure everyone in here will be receptive. For example:

 

After WWII the US felt it was in its best interests to build up Japan, Germany, Italy, etc. Hence, the Marshall plan, which resulted in turning these countries into staunch US allies with strong national governments and robust economies (technically the Marshall Plan only applied to European countries).

 

A factual statement like that one would back up your previous post where you said (I paraphrase) "Sometimes you have to deal with your enemies".

 

However, if you're just going to do the idiotic right-wingnut shtick, then people will respond in kind.

 

much like your idiotic left-wingnut shtick?

[Boz/BoFan 0]

You don't read your own posts, do you?

 

If you have something substantive to contribute to the thread -- for example, backing up your assertions and opinions with facts -- I'm sure everyone in here will be receptive. For example:

 

After WWII the US felt it was in its best interests to build up Japan, Germany, Italy, etc. Hence, the Marshall plan, which resulted in turning these countries into staunch US allies with strong national governments and robust economies (technically the Marshall Plan only applied to European countries).

 

 

 

All common knowledge. Do you want me to tuck you in at night also?

[akaoni 0]

FWIW-They're discussing this topic on NPR's Talk of the Nation right now.

[Voltaire 4,564]

I posted this article because I hoped it might lead to some kind of interesting discussion on the direction of US policy in the Mid East. Instead, it's just another flame war. Guess I shouldn't have expected anything else...

 

I feel bad for you. This is a great, great read and thanks for posting it. Very insightful. Makes me wonder who our friends are and aren't over there.

[Flashover 0]

I can't help it if this administration screws things up at every turn. Their first step was in the correct direction (in Afghanistan), but thereafter they've gone in the wrong direction again and again. Stablility is the watchword in the middle east, but for some reason each decision they've made has just made the area less stable. Not only do we now have the Sunni extreamists to deal with (apparently we're now even happy to fund them through the Saudis) but as a direct result of our actions, we've given the Shiite's a taste of power that will spur them to create yet more unrest. Now, we're apparently attempting to play up both sides extremist elements to give us an excuse to bomb Iran. They have decided to bring Iran and Syria to the diplomatic table, but in light of Hersh's revelations in the above article, I doubt anything substantive can come of it.

 

But to get back to your point. I posted this article because I hoped it might lead to some kind of interesting discussion on the direction of US policy in the Mid East. Instead, it's just another flame war. Guess I shouldn't have expected anything else...

 

Yes, this administration has gotten just about everything wrong. There comes a point where there is no more credibility. "This time we got it right" doesn't work anymore if you've screwed up as much as Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the bunch have. It's now become obvious that the Bush administration did not just make a couple of mistakes but can still get the job done, but instead they are incompetent and incapapble of getting the job done. And as usual, they seem to be continuing to make bad decisions.

 

Good topic but yeah too bad it turned into a flame war.

[akaoni 0]

I feel bad for you. This is a great, great read and thanks for posting it. Very insightful. Makes me wonder who our friends are and aren't over there.

 

Thanks for that. By the way, what do you do in China? I ask because I spent a number of years in Japan in the standard English teaching gig? You've probably discussed this elsewhere, but I haven't been posting here all that long. Just wondering.