• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Al Qaeda Works for the CIA: Why Shouldn't I Believe This?

Seventh_Pilot said:
...I asked about SOXMIS in the hope you would demonstrate some knowledge of what they were about, in the context of your statement they have relevance, if you knew much about them you would see that...

My understanding, which, unlike yours, is not first-hand but harvested from Tony Geraghty's book BRIXMIS, is that SOXMIS was the Soviet equivalent of the former and therefore a liaison team mainly concerned with the observation of the opposing sides military formations under the terms of a reciprocal arrangement agreed between Soviet and British military commanders very soon after WW2. As such I too can't really see it's relevance.


I have no desire to enlighten you or anybody else..

That's kind of becoming obvious.

(And I've gone through this thread again and reread the posts you appear to be reacting to and I have to say I'm intrigued as to why you've got so hot under the collar, particularly all this stuff about the Cold War and proxy assassinations. Go on, enlighten us, you've whet my curiosity).
 
Incidentally, the Tony Geraghty book is a great read, the stories in it outdoing any fictional accounts I've ever read relating to Cold War skullduggery. I'm going to dig it out of whichever box its in an reread it - thanks for the reminder.
 
Seventh_Pilot said:
For your information both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal under international law as is the continued occupation in both those countries...


How? And so what? Are you arguing that the legality of the campaigns of the "War on Terror" is somehow an important aspect to understand what fuel muslim radicalisme and terrorisme?

Because I strongly doubt that it matters for the arabe muslims if the UN said it was legal or not to bomb their homeland. International law isn't relevant for everyone.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
ted_bloody_maul said:
As pointed out on several occasions in those articles, however, the CIA were effectively working blind through the ISI. The idea that this means they created Al-Qaeda, let alone creating it so it could later be controlled like a puppet on a string, is well wide of the mark.
Did I wake you up, Ted_Bloody_Maul?

All that money, all that heavy armament, all the covert ops training, yet the CIA, or that sub-group within the organisation most heavily involved, have absolutely no idea what's really going on, yet they put their blind trust in foreign agents and agencies, to act on their behalf...

With no idea who's telling the truth, or what's true, or real, we live in a World in which Conspiracies don't occur and when they do, they are only instigated by foreigners.

Apparently. :gaga:

Bullocks!!as you Pommies say..they knew!The whole thing was planned from beginning to end in Washington.Who or what carried it out is iirelavant.The people in power that day are on the public record ,a year before ,calling for it.. "a new pearl harbor".so they could sell to the American people the idea of projecting American power to secure for American interests the world's energy reserves.Afganistan because it lies between the landlocked but oil/gas rich Caspian Basin & the Indian Ocean (the only way to profitably get it out..pipelines across Afganistan) Explains why the Soviets invaded Afganistan in December 1979 too..have you got a better expalination why the Soviets took this provacative act at the height of the cold war??world being on a hair trigger..MAD..course..one slight mistake & BOOM..of course NOT..had to be a BIG prize to make that move!Well,now we know what that BIG prize is!
Sorry,But Orwell warned us 60 years ago.yet we still sit on our hand & watch it happen..cameras everywhere..reading our mail (E & snail)..what's it gonna take?I'm sorry but the time for excuses has come & gone.You are either with freedom or against it.I guess most of you are against it..it didn't have to be this way.You made madeit this way.may your grandchildren forgive you...but why should they,I wouldn't!
 
waitew said:
...Afganistan because it lies between the landlocked but oil/gas rich Caspian Basin & the Indian Ocean (the only way to profitably get it out..pipelines across Afganistan) Explains why the Soviets invaded Afganistan in December 1979 too...

Seems an awful lot of bother to go to considering that during the Cold War the USSR not only had ports on the Caspian Sea but that, at a rough estimate, 80% of the coastline was controlled by Soviet states and that virtually all, if not all, the Caspian Basin was Soviet controlled. I'm a bit confused as to why they'd want to pipe it in the wrong direction through hostile territory and then ship it half way round the world back to themselves.
 
waitew said:
Explains why the Soviets invaded Afganistan in December 1979 too..have you got a better expalination why the Soviets took this provacative act at the height of the cold war??

Hmm - that sounds like conjecture. After all, the Soviet Union wasn't all that short of oil and gas reserves (Russia still isn't today, as it's a major energy exporter). As to it being a 'provacative act' - well, Afghanistan was already a puppet state of the Soviet Union. It was not as if they were invading an 'enemy' state.
 
I never said the Soviets wanted the Caspian Basin oil for their own consumption LOL,in fact the thought never occured to me.They wanted it to sell on the world market!It's a cash cow!They wanted it so they wouldn't go broke!They wanted it to prevent the Soviet Union from collapsing.I thought that was obvious.I never dreamed anyone would think I was suggesting they needed it for their domestic use.
 
waitew said:
I never said the Soviets wanted the Caspian Basin oil for their own consumption LOL,in fact the thought never occured to me.They wanted it to sell on the world market!

Strange then that they don't appear to have much of a problem exporting huge amounts of gas and oil to the rest of us now, despite the fact that they don't have the apparently essential overland route control of Afghanistan would give them. Strange then that a political system not known for its reliance on the export market would undergo a costly war in order to secure a pipeline to supply a product that would be largely unsaleable due to the trade embargos that would be instigated as a result of it's actions.

I'm not saying oil is not, or might not be, part of the issue, then or now, but the constant assertion that everything is about oil seems to me to be the new orthodoxy and one that appears to disregard all other political, strategic, historic, not to mention, practical, issues.

Nazi Germany needed to secure the oilfields of Baku in order to prosecute its war, however that war was not instigated to secure the oilfields of Baku. Although oil is undoubtedly an important factor it seems, at least to me, not to be the end of all argument and in this particular case it ignores every other factor involved in a troubled regional relationship that stretches back through time from the era of the Soviets to Tsarist Russia.
 
waitew said:
I never said the Soviets wanted the Caspian Basin oil for their own consumption LOL,in fact the thought never occured to me.They wanted it to sell on the world market!It's a cash cow!They wanted it so they wouldn't go broke!They wanted it to prevent the Soviet Union from collapsing.I thought that was obvious.I never dreamed anyone would think I was suggesting they needed it for their domestic use.

What makes you think that the Soviet Union was in danger of collapsing at the time? Seems to me that you're desperately trying to shoehorn the 'it's all about oil' idea into the equation.
 
Jerry_B said:
...

What makes you think that the Soviet Union was in danger of collapsing at the time? Seems to me that you're desperately trying to shoehorn the 'it's all about oil' idea into the equation.
The fact that the USSR did, in fact, collapse shortly after, might be considered a bit of a give away. ;)
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
The fact that the USSR did, in fact, collapse shortly after, might be considered a bit of a give away. ;)

It collapsed more than a decade after, and partly due to, the invasion though. As far as I'm aware nobody has put forward the theory that the Soviet Union collapsed because it failed to secure energy resources.
 
Yes - the Soviet invasion took place in 1979; the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
 
Jerry_B said:
Yes - the Soviet invasion took place in 1979; the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
Is 12 years such a long time in the forward planning of a One Party Totalitarian State, like the USSR?

Perhaps, the Soviets knew something that we didn't? Or, are you suggesting that they had no idea about the state of their economy, or the importance of the energy reserves in the region, not just Afghanistan, but the whole Muslim majority south of the USSR, to the continued existence of the State, both economically and strategically?

The USSR's Afghanistan War has been likened to the USA's Vietnam misadventure, but strategically, the USSR's attempt to bring Afghanistan to heel made more sense. The rise of the new Islamic radicalism obviously worried them greatly.
 
Getting back on topic here - I could not find out why the USSR collapsed anyway - I was watching Apocalypse Now - Redux last night and saw a French family discussing how the Americans created the Viet Cong.

So I now have two groups in my mind that have allegedly been created by the USA - the Viet Cong and Al Queda.

Are there any others?
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Is 12 years such a long time in the forward planning of a One Party Totalitarian State, like the USSR?

You may need to become more familiar with how 'forward-thinking' the USSR was. If anything, the SU had a history of getting things wrong.

Perhaps, the Soviets knew something that we didn't? Or, are you suggesting that they had no idea about the state of their economy, or the importance of the energy reserves in the region, not just Afghanistan, but the whole Muslim majority south of the USSR, to the continued existence of the State, both economically and strategically?

The USSR's Afghanistan War has been likened to the USA's Vietnam misadventure, but strategically, the USSR's attempt to bring Afghanistan to heel made more sense. The rise of the new Islamic radicalism obviously worried them greatly.

It seems to me that you're trying to back-engineer current outlooks and place them on the past, to make it fit the 'war for oil' hypothesis. The idea of Islamic radicalism simply wasn't an aspect of the picture of the time. It's not something that would have bothered the SU. From what took place at the time, the initial Soviet forays into Afghanistan were with an eye to taking control away from the regime in which they had put in place. In order to extend it's power base, it moved more troops and materiel into the country, using the well-honed Soviet strategy of overwhelming force ('shock & awe' is not anything new). However, this met with a great deal more resistance than was expected and of an nature that the Soviet armed forces were not used to dealing with, and thus the war dragged on, exacerbated by foreign backing of the insurgents. One can see that similar tactics by Western countries today in Afghanistan have met with pretty much the same problems. Even after the end of the Cold War, Soviet military thinking still dominated Russian military thinking - which is probably one reason why the same mistakes were made when the distastrous First Chechen War kicked off.
 
coldelephant said:
Getting back on topic here - I could not find out why the USSR collapsed anyway - I was watching Apocalypse Now - Redux last night and saw a French family discussing how the Americans created the Viet Cong.

It's an idea that this was done indirectly, because the US repeatedly ignored the young Ho Chi Minh when he petitioned the US to intervene against French infuence in Vietnam.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Jerry_B said:
Yes - the Soviet invasion took place in 1979; the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
Is 12 years such a long time in the forward planning of a One Party Totalitarian State, like the USSR?

How long after Al Qaeda pushed the USSR out of Afghanistan, turning it into the medieval hell hole we had to "free", did the USSR collapse into economic turmoil ?

Also didn't the USSR "invade" Afghanistan because "we" already had groups running around the country differently stabilizing the place ?
 
crunchy5 said:
How long after Al Qaeda pushed the USSR out of Afghanistan, turning it into the medieval hell hole we had to "free", did the USSR collapse into economic turmoil ?

Also didn't the USSR "invade" Afghanistan because "we" already had groups running around the country differently stabilizing the place ?

It took a couple of years but it was partly down to the fact that they'd been fighting for so long that they fell. What caused the Soviet Union to collapse was not the issue of energy resources in relation to Afghanistan but the fact that they had an unsustainable economy brought to ruin more quickly by trying to compete with American defence spending. Also it'd be quite wrong to say that Al-Qaeda forced the Soviets out of Afghanistan in much the same way it would be wrong to say that the French resistance forced the Nazis out of France in 1944 (or to make the same claim of Britain, even). Perhaps even less accurate, in fact.

Quite what reason the Soviets might genuinely have had for the invasion of Afghanistan perhaps only they really know but Afghanistan was in a state of civil war before their invasion and any American involvement (which pre-dates the Soviet invasion although it did not pre-date the Soviet backing of the regime which had provoked the civil war).
 
Jerry_B said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Is 12 years such a long time in the forward planning of a One Party Totalitarian State, like the USSR?

You may need to become more familiar with how 'forward-thinking' the USSR was. If anything, the SU had a history of getting things wrong.
That wasn't because they weren't forward thinking, though. That was because, once they'd set things in motion, it took them a long time to change direction. Seems it's not me who doesn't quite grasp how the USSR planned ahead and the sort of scale it operated on. :roll:

Jerry_B said:
Perhaps, the Soviets knew something that we didn't? Or, are you suggesting that they had no idea about the state of their economy, or the importance of the energy reserves in the region, not just Afghanistan, but the whole Muslim majority south of the USSR, to the continued existence of the State, both economically and strategically?

The USSR's Afghanistan War has been likened to the USA's Vietnam misadventure, but strategically, the USSR's attempt to bring Afghanistan to heel made more sense. The rise of the new Islamic radicalism obviously worried them greatly.

It seems to me that you're trying to back-engineer current outlooks and place them on the past, to make it fit the 'war for oil' hypothesis. The idea of Islamic radicalism simply wasn't an aspect of the picture of the time. It's not something that would have bothered the SU. ...
You must live in some alternate universe, Jerry_B. One on a different historical timeline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

Soviet war in Afghanistan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Soviet war in Afghanistan was a nine-year conflict involving Soviet forces supporting Afghanistan's Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) government against the Mujahideen insurgents that were fighting to overthrow Communist rule. The Soviet Union supported the government while the rebels found support from a variety of sources including the United States, Pakistan and other Muslim nations in the context of the Cold War. This conflict was concurrent to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War.

...

In February of 1979, the Islamic Revolution had ousted the US backed Shahs from Afghanistan's neighbor Iran. In the Soviet Union, Afghanistan's northern neighbor, more than twenty percent of the population was Muslim. Many Soviet Muslims in Central Asia had tribal kinship relationships in both Iran and Afghanistan. The Soviet Union had also been concerned by the fact that since that February the United States had deployed twenty ships, including two aircraft carriers, and the constant stream of threats of warfare between the US and Iran.[3]

March of 1979 also marked the signing of the US backed peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. The Soviet Union leadership saw the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt as a major step in the progression of US power in the region. In fact, one Soviet newspaper stated that Egypt and Israel were now “gendarmes of the Pentagon”. The Soviets viewed the treaty as not only a cessation in the hostilities between the two nations but also as some form of military agreement. [4] In addition, the Soviets found America selling more than five thousand missiles to Saudi Arabia and also supplying the successful Yemeni resistance against communist factions. Also, the Soviet Union's previously strong relations with Iraq had recently soured. Iraq, in June 1978, began buying French and Italian made weapons as opposed to Soviet weapons.

...
You might not find the Wikipedia a creditable source, but that all seems clear enough.

As to the strategic importance of the region, re oil and gas reserves, do you really think the Soviets were complete idiots?
 
Also from the same site:

By the time Gorbachev ushered in the process that would lead to the dismantling of the Soviet administrative command economy through his programs of glasnost (political openness), perestroika (economic restructuring), and uskoreniye (speed−up of economic development) announced in 1986, the Soviet economy suffered from both hidden inflation and pervasive supply shortages aggravated by an increasingly open black market that undermined the official economy. Additionally, the costs of superpower status — the military, KGB, subsidies to client states — were out of proportion to the Soviet economy. The new wave of industrialization based upon information technology had left the Soviet Union desperate for Western technology and credits in order to counter its increasing backwardness.

.............................................

By 1990 the Soviet government had lost control over economic conditions. Government spending increased sharply as an increasing number of unprofitable enterprises required state support and consumer price subsidies to continue. Tax revenues declined as republic and local governments withheld tax revenues from the central government under the growing spirit of regional autonomy. The anti−alcohol campaign reduced tax revenues as well, which in 1982 accounted for about 12 percent of all state revenue. The elimination of central control over production decisions, especially in the consumer goods sector, led to the breakdown in traditional supplier−producer relationships without contributing to the formation of new ones. Thus, instead of streamlining the system, Gorbachev's decentralization caused new production bottlenecks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... %931991%29

Whatever the Soviet Union's motivation for its invasion of Afghanistan, and it may indeed have been related to energy supply, there would seem to have been greater in-built problems with their communist economy. After all, Russia still has enough of an energy surplus to provide both its satellite states and new European clients today.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
That wasn't because they weren't forward thinking, though. That was because, once they'd set things in motion, it took them a long time to change direction. Seems it's not me who doesn't quite grasp how the USSR planned ahead and the sort of scale it operated on. :roll:

So you're suggesting that the Soviet Union knew that it only had 12 years left to live?

You might not find the Wikipedia a creditable source, but that all seems clear enough.

As to the strategic importance of the region, re oil and gas reserves, do you really think the Soviets were complete idiots?

Of course I don't think they were idiots - well, not complete idiots. Their invasion of Afghanistan suffered from the same short-sightedness as various other attempts, past and present, to mould the country into something that suited them. They may have succeeded if the West had not intervened. By their initial actions it seems that they thought that the situation could under their control fairly quickly. The idea that it was pretty about oil and Islam is simply trying to rewrite history to make it fit with the mores of today IMHO. I think sometimes people forget how much impact the Cold War had on the political machinations of the time.
 
Jerry_B said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
That wasn't because they weren't forward thinking, though. That was because, once they'd set things in motion, it took them a long time to change direction. Seems it's not me who doesn't quite grasp how the USSR planned ahead and the sort of scale it operated on. :roll:

So you're suggesting that the Soviet Union knew that it only had 12 years left to live?

...
Now you're just being contemptible.
 
Seems very odd to blame the war in Afghanistan for the fall of the soviet union. There are surely other more pertinent reasons.

My understanding of Afghanistant was it was purely a war of ideologies, a face off between the US and USSR, although initially it started off differently.

Alarmed by the deteriorating situation, especially the collapse of the army and the prospect that a disintegrating Afghanistan would threaten its security on its southern border, the Soviet Union airlifted thousands of troops into Kabul on December 24, 1979. The Khalq president, Hafizullah Amin, was assassinated after Soviet intelligence forces took control of the government and installed Babrak Karmal, a Parchami, as president.

The Soviet occupation force of some 115,000 troops and the Karmal government sought to crush the uprisings with mass arrests, torture, and executions of dissidents, and aerial bombardments and executions in the countryside. Some one million Afghans died during this period, most in aerial bombardments. These measures further expanded the resistance to the communist government in Kabul and fueled a flow of refugees out of the country that soon reached five million out of a population of about sixteen million.

Islamist organizations that became the heart of the resistance - and collectively became known as the jihad fighters or mujahidin - based themselves in Pakistan and Iran.. Seeing the conflict as a cold war battleground, the United States and Saudi Arabia, in particular, provided massive support for the resistance, nearly all of it funneled through Pakistan. The arms pipeline gave Pakistan a tremendous ability to bolster parties in Afghanistan that would serve its own interests.

Joining the resistance forces were thousands of Muslim radicals from the Middle East, North Africa and other Muslim countries. Most fought with Pashtun factions that had the strongest support from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the Hizb-i Islami of Gulbuddin Hikmatyar and Ittihad-i Islami of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf. Among them was Osama bin Laden, who came to Pakistan in the early 1980s and built training facilities for these foreign recruits inside Afghanistan.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1023.htm
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Now you're just being contemptible.

Not at all. After all, you seemed to be suggesting that the SU knew that it was on borrowed time.
 
Jerry_B said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Now you're just being contemptible.

Not at all. After all, you seemed to be suggesting that the SU knew that it was on borrowed time.
Not even that. Although, I refer you to Ted's previous post about Gorbachev's attempts at a major overhaul of the economic system, around 1986.

The Soviet system, based as it was on long term planning and a particularly monolithic and inflexible system of mass production, simply could not compete with the West. It was in trouble. But, you seem to choose to wilfully misconstrue my actual posts, in a miserable attempt to infer that I'm relying on the 'benefit of hindsight' in my extrapolation of the process whereby the Soviet Union dug itself into a state of bankruptcy and collapse.

What you suggest simply isn't there in my Posts. Or, perhaps you merely misunderstood them, overlaying your preconceptions of my argument on top? So that you read, essentially what you wanted to read, rather than what was actually Posted?
 
I really don't see the need for you to have such an agressive reaction to my question. All I was asking for was some clarification of one of your previous posts.
 
Indeed. Can people address the points as making accusations/assumptions about other people and their motivations is a bona fide method for driving the thread off topic and into the kind of territory where moderators have to get involved beyond a simple friendly nudge.

Worth noting this is aimed at everyone on every thread here not just this specific one or any of the posters on it (although for some reason it is the kind of thing that needs mentioning a lot in the conspiracy forum)..
 
Ok - back on topic then

Did the USA fund, train and/or otherwise encourage groups of fanatics to attack enemies only to find they deviated from their agenda later on and went awol and became terrorists instead?

To answer Emps' question, I would say that it is because people are very much into the debate and really putting feeling into what they say ;)
 
coldelephant said:
Ok - back on topic then

Did the USA fund, train and/or otherwise encourage groups of fanatics to attack enemies only to find they deviated from their agenda later on and went awol and became terrorists instead?

...
Were secret 'Black Op' groups, connected to, but working independently of the CIA, set up to liaise with Mudjahidin, partially through deep cover liaison, partially through the Secret Services of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to act as the USA's proxy Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan? Perhaps, there are similarities with the sort of group set up to liaise with the Iranians and Contras, in the Iran Contra scandal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/

http://911review.org/Alex/Iran-Contra_911.html

Were links maintained with Islamic extremists, specially trained in Afghanistan, after the collapse of the USSR?
 
Back
Top