We (the USA) helped to create and fund al-Qaeda, right now we are just trying to be friends with the enemy of our enemy. It won't work, and all we are doing is creating more foreign policy "blow back" (see 9/11/01).

Seeing this as a victory (or at least a step in the right direction) just shows how unbelievable naive and arrogant we are.

We (the USA) helped to create and fund al-Qaeda

Of course you can document this absurd claim. OBL was about the only Muj we DID NOT fund.

"A U.S. Marine commander in Anbar province predicted that al-Qaida fighters will be expelled from Fallujah by August as the military moves to cut insurgent supply and reinforcement lines into Baghdad and surrounding areas."

Funny...I seem to remember this confident talk back before the massive November '04 operation. Why should we believe them this time when leveling half the city just kept them out temporarily?

Amazing that half a year ago the liberal press was calling al Anbar a hopeless lost cause. How does that hat taste now?

>>>We (the USA) helped to create and fund al-Qaeda

Of course you can document this absurd claim. OBL was about the only Muj we DID NOT fund.
Posted by Purple Avenger at June 21, 2007 09:31 PM>>>

Absurd? How about you use Google to search for it. How about you watch the history chanel. How about you read a book. What is absurd is the fact that you do not know or are unwilling to admit that this is fact. I will quote for you:

"At the root of these quarrels was the usual culprit - money. Preshawar was the funnel through which cash poured into the jihad and the vast relief effort to help the refugees. The main pool of funds-the hundreds of millions of dollars from the United States and Saudi Arabia doled out by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) each year to the Afghan warlords - was drying up as the Soviets Prepared to leave." (page 134 "The Looming Tower" Lawrence Wright).

Get a library card, they are free.

"Amazing that half a year ago the liberal press was calling al Anbar a hopeless lost cause. How does that hat taste now?"

You're not suggesting this is going to last, are you? Do you fall for this every time there is a temporary improvement? As soon as they run al Qaeda off, they'll turn right back around and fire on us, with the bullets we gave them.

An American alliance with the 1920 Revolutionary Brigades is not what you could fairly call sustainable.

I have to say, I do enjoy coming back here though. There are fewer and fewer right wing blogs that continue to ride the cycle of getting indignant that the media is not reporting on a given temporary improvement to their liking and falling silent when the situation falls back to its normally dire state. Rinse. Repeat.

[[We (the USA) helped to create and fund al-Qaeda]]

That is an absurd claim. We funded the Mujahideen, you know as part of winning the cold war. AQ emerged later, but even if a small portion of our money made its way into the hand of groups that later became AQ, well, small price to pay for defeating imperial communism.

[[You're not suggesting this is going to last, are you?]]

Nice to see the loon left still trying to persuade anyone who will will listen that Iraq is lost, despite the election of a government, the building of a 160,000 man army and a 160,000 man police force, despite the collapse of sectarian violence, despite the pacification of Mosul, Tal Afar, Karbala, Najaf, Ramadi et al.

Are you Harry Reid? Seen your poll numbers recently?

JW NC, the quotation from Wright says nothing about bin Laden, and for good reason: we funded the mujahedeen--who were Afghan, unlike bin Laden. Bin Laden was one of many outsiders who came unbidden by the Afghans, who did not work with the "Afghan Arabs" (a derisive nickname Afghans gave the wannabe soldiers of fortune who crossed over into Afghanistan for the sole purpose of mixing it up with Soviet troops). Check out Stephen Schwartz's "The Two Faces of Islam"--he's got the skinny on this.

the quotation from Wright says nothing about bin Laden

Precisely my point -- apparently lost on JW in hast to commit the same fraud again only at higher volume.

One can hardly dispute that we aided many of the Muj. Demonstrating that we targeted OBL for specific aid is a much harder task.

The best reporting on all this is not found on Google or History channel either, rather in 25 year old editions of Soldier of Fortune who sent reporters into the region to cover the Muj long before the MSM was paying any attention.

JW probably thinks WWII was immoral b/c we allied with Stalin.

Or, maybe he thinks the cold war was immoral b/c we had previously allied with the Soviets.

Whats it like living in a cartoon universe, JW?

Get a library card indeed. And try reading something published prior to 2003.

"Nice to see the loon left still trying to persuade anyone who will will listen that Iraq is lost, despite the election of a government,"

BAGHDAD, June 20 -- Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi, a senior Shiite politician often mentioned as a potential prime minister, tendered his resignation last week in a move that reflects deepening frustration inside the Iraqi government with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Other senior Iraqi officials have considered resigning in recent weeks over the failures of their government to make progress after more than a year in power, according to Iraqi and U.S. officials.

"the building of a 160,000 man army and a 160,000 man police force,"

BAGHDAD -- The signs of the militias are everywhere at the Sholeh police station.
Posters celebrating Moqtada al-Sadr, head of the Mahdi Army militia, dot the building's walls. The police chief sometimes remarks that Shiite militias should wipe out all Sunnis. Visitors to this violent neighborhood in the Iraqi capital whisper that nearly all the police officers have split loyalties. . . .
"I wouldn't let half of them feed my dog," 1st Lt. Floyd D. Estes Jr., a former head of the police transition team, said of the Iraqi police. "I just don't trust them."
Jon Moore, the deputy team chief, said: "We don't know who the hell we're teaching: Are they police or are they militia?"

"despite the collapse of sectarian violence,"

BAGHDAD, 18 June 2007 (IRIN) - Sunni families remaining in Shia neighbourhoods of Baghdad are being forced to flee their homes: A 72-hour deadline announced by militants for them to leave these areas or face death expires on 18 June.

"despite the pacification of Mosul,"

BAGHDAD, June 20 (Reuters) - Gunmen kidnapped eight Christian university students and a lecturer in northern Iraq on Wednesday, police said.
They said the group was snatched off a bus east of the city of Mosul. The students were going home after completing exams.
Militants often target Iraq's tiny Christian community. Thousands of Christians have fled Iraq in recent years, joining an exodus of some 2 million Iraqis who have sought a safer life in mainly neighbouring countries.

"Tal Afar,"

June 19 (Reuters) - Following are security developments in Iraq at 2000 GMT on Tuesday: . . .
TAL AFAR - A woman and a child were killed by a mortar attack in the town of Tal Afar, 420 km (260 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

"Karbala,"

The Department of Defense announced today the death of three soldiers who were supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. They died June 10 in Karbala, Iraq, of wounds suffered from an improvised explosive device.

"Najaf,"

GENEVA, June 15 (Reuters) - People fleeing violence in Iraq have begun to move into atrocious makeshift camps on the fringes of cities such as Najaf, the United Nations refugee agency said on Friday. . . .
At one site near the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf, hosting 200 families, people were drinking from a polluted water source and many women were urinating and defecating inside their huts because they were afraid of being attacked outside, he said.

"Ramadi"

June 13 (Reuters) - Following are security developments in Iraq at 1630 GMT on Wednesday:...
RAMADI - Four Iraqi policemen were killed and 11 officers wounded by a suicide car bomber targeting their checkpoint outside Ramadi, 110 km (68 miles) west of Baghdad.

"et al."

By Barry Schweid, AP Diplomatic Writer | June 18, 2007
WASHINGTON --Iraq is now the second most unstable country in the world, a private survey finds, its standing deteriorating from last year's fourth place on a list of the 10 nations most vulnerable to violent internal conflict and worsening conditions

"Are you Harry Reid? Seen your poll numbers recently?"

Do you think they would improve if he actually helped get us out of Iraq instead of just talking about it and making empty gestures?

[...AQ emerged later, but even if a small portion of our money made its way into the hand of groups that later became AQ, well, small price to pay for defeating imperial communism.
Posted by dieneoliberal at June 22, 2007 12:39 AM]

So I guess 9/11 was that small price. Wow, just, wow.

To others that seem to be putting words in my post. It says nothing about Bin Ladden. I never said we funded HIM, we funded what became HIS organization to help defeat imperial communism (as pointed out by dieneoliberal).

I never said anything about the morality, all I am saying is we seem to be enacting short term foreign policy that has long term consequences. But I guess if you support us funding AQ to attack imperial communists, why not support terrorist organization(s) to attack other terrorist organization(s). Whats the worse that can happen?

Ah yes, the classic we gave stinger missiles to the Afghans therefore all jihadists have been "created" by the United States. Nothing happens in the world independent of what evil Amerika does. Everything revolves around it. One of the telltale sings of the deranged anti-American mindset.

"Ah yes, the classic we gave stinger missiles to the Afghans therefore all jihadists have been "created" by the United States. Nothing happens in the world independent of what evil Amerika does. Everything revolves around it. One of the telltale sings of the deranged anti-American mindset."

Counterbalanced nicely by the "They hate us because of our freedoms" dronings of the more disconnected amongst us.

Rafar, they don't hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because they haven't been convinced that it's safer not to hate us.

Thanks to people like you.

Thanks for helping to extend the unrest and thanks for helping to get hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis killed. You've done your part.

"They hate us because they haven't been convinced that it's safer not to hate us."

They hate you because they percieve you as an imperial force which keeps them under the thumb, supports dictators which suppress them and generally keep bombing their fellow Muslims. Now, they may be wrong in that opinion, but it is certainly their opinion.

"Thanks for helping to extend the unrest and thanks for helping to get hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis killed. "

No, thank you. I admit that I am responsible for the gross stupidity that was the invasion of Iraq. It was me touting dubious intel to pursue some idiot dream of spreading democracy at gun point in a country with such an unstable makeup.

I just wish that I hadn't sent the troops in. It seems such an obviously bad idea now. If only people had warned me.

"Counterbalanced nicely by the "They hate us because of our freedoms" dronings of the more disconnected amongst us."

So Rafah, you think that al-Qaeda likes our freedoms?

"So Rafah, you think that al-Qaeda likes our freedoms?"

Do you mean the people like Bin Laden, or do you mean people like the local Jihadis in the UK, or the US? There is probably quite a difference between their opions.

Either way, I don't much think that they care. As Bin Laden said (and no, of course I don't like him, admire him, want him to succeed, etc) "Why did we not attack Sweden?". Or Holland, which by most measures is a more liberal society than the US. Whether you let gays marry or not is probably as much a matter of indifference to him as the Dutch decriminalising cannibis.

Of course I can't speak for him, and he may lay awake at night hoping that one day you will cover up all the girly magazines.

So they don't care then. Al Qaeda is pretty much neutral on the issue of freedom in your mind? That's an interesting answer, how did you arrive at the conclusion that bin Laden has no opinion on the topic of democracry, women's rights, religious freedom, dissent, free speech, etc....?

"Why did we not attack Sweden?".

Same reason Hitler didn't attack Peru. It's small, out of the way and not worth devoting any resources to at this point in time. It can be dealt with later when the powerful countries have been dealt with. Also, in the case of Sweden why attack it when it's being taken over demographically anyways?

They hate you because they perceive you as an imperial force

So where's my booty if I'm an imperialist? Surely some cheap gas would be the first of the spoils we would loot.

Looks like we're pumping billions more in aid in than we're looting out. We must be very inept imperialists.

However, thanks for conforming that these people are morons because they can't see the obvious.

"Looks like we're pumping billions more in aid in than we're looting out. We must be very inept imperialists."

I'll say.

"So they don't care then. Al Qaeda is pretty much neutral on the issue of freedom in your mind? That's an interesting answer, how did you arrive at the conclusion that bin Laden has no opinion on the topic of democracry, women's rights, religious freedom, dissent, free speech, etc....?"

Yes, that is exactly what I said...

*sigh*

I'll again have to break it down into shorter and simpler concepts.

Do you care about the human rights of a farmer in Peru? Perhaps in a general way you might, in a "I care for all humanity" way, but it is unlikely that it drives you. You could be said to be indifferent to it.

That is what I mean by indifferent. In the same way that I am sure you would want the Peruvian farmer to have freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc Bin Laden would, I am sure, like all Americans to convert to Islam, have Burka wearing as the norm, cover up the girlie magazines, run the place according to Sharia law, etc. That doesn't mean that such a thing is his primary motivation. His primary motivation, at least according o his speeches, is the removal of what he considers to be infidel occupiers from Islam's holy places, and to force those infidels to allow the Islamic majority to run their countries for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of the West.

The fact that the Islamic majority roundly rejects his vision when it is offered doesn't matter as he is a messianic nutcase who simply thinks that this is a reflection on the poor quality of political awareness of "his people".

All you have to do is look at the propeganda that the Islamists use to recruit fellow nutcases. It isn't filled with critiques of the US voting system, pictures of sex shops, or of women unveiled. It is filled with broken and bloody bodies, killed by "imperial forces", US troops lolling in Muslim holy places, corruption by leaders in Muslim countries sanctioned by the West, and pictures of starving children as a result of the Iraq sanctions, all of which are tied together into a narrative of Western oppression of Muslims in their own lands.

Is that clear enough? Like I say, you can disagree with his assesment of the situation, but it is pretty obvious that it *is* his assesment.

"Same reason Hitler didn't attack Peru. It's small, out of the way and not worth devoting any resources to at this point in time."

But it is free. If attacking freedom was the objective then attacking Sweden would be more useful because (a) it would be easier and less risky and (b) it is a more promising target than the less free US.

On the other hand, in terms of military might, interference of that military might around the world and support for such things as anti-Islamic groups around the world and support for dictatorships in the Middle East, the US is the more tempting target even though it is obviously more dangerous to attack.

But you are probably correct to try not to look at what Bin Laden says and does to determine his objectives in order to better fight him. Much better to continue with the silly portrayal of himthat seems prevalent. As I've said before, foreign policy based on fantasy has done so well for the last few years, why not carry it on.

"We must be very inept imperialists."

Well, not the worst the world has ever seen, but pretty poor at it, yes.

to better fight him??? split infinitive!!! learn some GRAMMAR hippy

"learn some GRAMMAR hippy"

The bar on split infinitives is a thing of the past. The requirements for single exclaimation marks, capital letters at the beginning of sentences and full stops at the end are, however, still in force.