George Galloway on Israel and Lebanon
Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Motorcycleboy @ Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:45 am
Banff Banff:
[ No offence but Go figure that someone would come up with such a statement when the Taliban and the US were wonderful freinds yesterday but not today . 
...
...
I don't ever recall the US and Taliban "being wonderful friends." You've been watching too much Michael Moore.
While it's true, the US tried to engage the Taliban prior to September 11, what else were they supposed to do?
Would you prefer that the US should have gone over to Afghanistan arbitrarily prior to that time and invaded simply because they disagreed with the Taliban's human rights record?
If so, then why stop there? Maybe under Clinton, the US should have been invading every country in the world with a human rights record that we disagree with.
The fact is, we share this world with a number of people, cultures and nations we don't like. Saudi Arabia is another one that comes to mind. Unfortunately, we can't just go invading every one of them. So sometimes we have to make nice.
That's just the way the world works.
Calgary123 @ Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:13 am
Newfy Newfy:
Banff Banff:
yesterday Afghanistan were allies supurb at taking down Russian military today you think they are terrorists pleeeease don't bore me with silly questions or I might give more answers instead of just one .
You need to understand a bit about the history of Afghanistan before you make statements like that. The people of Afghanistan are not the terrorists, it is the Taliban which are not even Afghanistanis by origin that took control of the country and ruled with terror. The Taliban is a faction of the Mujihadeen that seperated from them centuries ago. People seem to only think of the Soviets and us as the two main "invaders". Afghanistan has been invaded and ruled by many different nations over the centuries.
The Taliban became terrorists the moment they attacked the USA in the way that they did.
$1:
Taliban which are not even Afghanistanis by origin that took control of the country and ruled with terror. The Taliban is a faction of the Mujihadeen that seperated from them centuries ago.
Taliban/Mujihadeen... you mean the group that was assembled in 1980 by the CIA/ISI, as a means to repell the Soviets? Indirectly funded by the US using the ISI as an insulator.
$1:
The Taliban became terrorists the moment they attacked the USA in the way that they did.
[/quote]
Since when did the Taliban attack the US???
I think YOU are the one who needs to study some history my friend. The Taliban was a manufactured enemy for the public courtesy of the US government. The reality is though, that they have been an organization that has been funded by the US government for over 25 years, and even protected post 911. The leadership of the Taliban were "accidentally" airlifted out of Afghanistan by the American military to Pakistan... secretly... after the air war that was intended to soften them up so they could safely move on to building military bases. This was documented in mainstream press, and was quietly swept under the carpet and largely ignored by the US corporate media.
Banff @ Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:35 pm
Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
Banff Banff:
[ No offence but Go figure that someone would come up with such a statement when the Taliban and the US were wonderful freinds yesterday but not today .
...
...
I don't ever recall the US and Taliban "being wonderful friends." You've been watching too much Michael Moore.
While it's true, the US tried to engage the Taliban prior to September 11, what else were they supposed to do?
Would you prefer that the US should have gone over to Afghanistan arbitrarily prior to that time and invaded simply because they disagreed with the Taliban's human rights record?
If so, then why stop there? Maybe under Clinton, the US should have been invading every country in the world with a human rights record that we disagree with.
The fact is, we share this world with a number of people, cultures and nations we don't like. Saudi Arabia is another one that comes to mind. Unfortunately, we can't just go invading every one of them. So sometimes we have to make nice.
That's just the way the world works.
Does Osama Bin Laden ring a bell . The US CIA created the guy . The list of nuckle heads is long right down to the little guys like Joseph Kony infact does anyone realize how long the list of oppressed peoples are ? I'd like to see how far this discussion would go if we went on those principals .
Lets just hope we're doing the right thing because I hope the make nice thing is not a coverup for other reasons which inturn creates tin foil haters versus war mongers ( which of course is a good thing because of overwhelming things like media beating away on palestinians on their own land to the point that people don't even know whose land it is )
Metaphoricly , everytime we try to challege our first nations people we get critcized internationally to the point where something like a bid to host olympics becomes a big question mark if we don't follow strict human rights guidelines (homeless etc).Should we be attacked because of first nation issues or Quebec seperatist issues ?.
The fight in afghanistan (Taliban) has to many acts to follow and is not just related to terrorism and oppression for the benefit of afghans . Kind of foolish to think otherwise yet foolish for some american tin foil haters to think nothing should be done about the likes of Taliban , subway bombers ,and also 9/11 . The US should try making amends to solve many issues at hand while they are pointing weapons at everybody but tell me what Harper has ?
...So are you are saying it points in the direction of graduating from peacekeeping to basicly war with intent to destroy for the benefit of afghan citizens and a couple of "MEDIA PROVIDED" bomb threats in Canada labeling one or more groups of mideast peoples excluding Israel ?
Sounds like while the Taliban is useful to others were trying to close in on them and make nice to other groups who find them useful .
The biggest legitimate reason for bringing war to the face of anyone is those who try to block and oppress the humanitarian needs of world peoples but guaranteed it is always issues of unfair trade practices and those who wish to rule the trade practices of others by creating oppressions through war ... the Westbank and Gaza don't qualify as legitimate and you make me feel like you think you know better regarding Galloway.
EyeBrock @ Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:42 pm
Calgary123 Calgary123:
Newfy Newfy:
Banff Banff:
yesterday Afghanistan were allies supurb at taking down Russian military today you think they are terrorists pleeeease don't bore me with silly questions or I might give more answers instead of just one .
You need to understand a bit about the history of Afghanistan before you make statements like that. The people of Afghanistan are not the terrorists, it is the Taliban which are not even Afghanistanis by origin that took control of the country and ruled with terror. The Taliban is a faction of the Mujihadeen that seperated from them centuries ago. People seem to only think of the Soviets and us as the two main "invaders". Afghanistan has been invaded and ruled by many different nations over the centuries.
The Taliban became terrorists the moment they attacked the USA in the way that they did.
$1:
Taliban which are not even Afghanistanis by origin that took control of the country and ruled with terror. The Taliban is a faction of the Mujihadeen that seperated from them centuries ago.
Taliban/Mujihadeen... you mean the group that was assembled in 1980 by the CIA/ISI, as a means to repell the Soviets? Indirectly funded by the US using the ISI as an insulator.
$1:
The Taliban became terrorists the moment they attacked the USA in the way that they did.
Since when did the Taliban attack the US??? I think YOU are the one who needs to study some history my friend. The Taliban was a manufactured enemy for the public courtesy of the US government. The reality is though, that they have been an organization that has been funded by the US government for over 25 years, and even protected post 911. The leadership of the Taliban were "accidentally" airlifted out of Afghanistan by the American military to Pakistan... secretly... after the air war that was intended to soften them up so they could safely move on to building military bases. This was documented in mainstream press, and was quietly swept under the carpet and largely ignored by the US corporate media.[/quote]
Proof please.
Banff @ Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:58 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Calgary123 Calgary123:
Newfy Newfy:
Banff Banff:
yesterday Afghanistan were allies supurb at taking down Russian military today you think they are terrorists pleeeease don't bore me with silly questions or I might give more answers instead of just one .
You need to understand a bit about the history of Afghanistan before you make statements like that. The people of Afghanistan are not the terrorists, it is the Taliban which are not even Afghanistanis by origin that took control of the country and ruled with terror. The Taliban is a faction of the Mujihadeen that seperated from them centuries ago. People seem to only think of the Soviets and us as the two main "invaders". Afghanistan has been invaded and ruled by many different nations over the centuries.
The Taliban became terrorists the moment they attacked the USA in the way that they did.
$1:
Taliban which are not even Afghanistanis by origin that took control of the country and ruled with terror. The Taliban is a faction of the Mujihadeen that seperated from them centuries ago.
Taliban/Mujihadeen... you mean the group that was assembled in 1980 by the CIA/ISI, as a means to repell the Soviets? Indirectly funded by the US using the ISI as an insulator.
$1:
The Taliban became terrorists the moment they attacked the USA in the way that they did.
Since when did the Taliban attack the US??? I think YOU are the one who needs to study some history my friend. The Taliban was a manufactured enemy for the public courtesy of the US government. The reality is though, that they have been an organization that has been funded by the US government for over 25 years, and even protected post 911. The leadership of the Taliban were "accidentally" airlifted out of Afghanistan by the American military to Pakistan... secretly... after the air war that was intended to soften them up so they could safely move on to building military bases. This was documented in mainstream press, and was quietly swept under the carpet and largely ignored by the US corporate media.
Proof please.[/quote]
I believe the reference he is making is related to beheadings and 9/11 and multiple videos of Osamas speeches etc etc etc to name a few . Alot of intertwining and relationships through several different groups and supporters of each other ....
cubalibre @ Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:24 pm
No he is talking about the US co-ordinated, pakistan carried out, airlift of taliban soldiers and top lieutenants
http://www.msnbc.com/news/664935.asp
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 128fa_FACT
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10301/ai ... mb=default
Wullu @ Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:26 pm
Is this the same George Galloway seen recently on Al Jazera pandering for money? Thought so.
PluggyRug @ Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:39 pm
$1:
think YOU are the one who needs to study some history my friend. The Taliban was a manufactured enemy for the public courtesy of the US government. The reality is though, that they have been an organization that has been funded by the US government for over 25 years, and even protected post 911. The leadership of the Taliban were "accidentally" airlifted out of Afghanistan by the American military to Pakistan... secretly... after the air war that was intended to soften them up so they could safely move on to building military bases. This was documented in mainstream press, and was quietly swept under the carpet and largely ignored by the US corporate media.
Proof please.
Calgary123 @ Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:55 pm
cubalibre cubalibre:
No he is talking about the US co-ordinated, pakistan carried out, airlift of taliban soldiers and top lieutenants
http://www.msnbc.com/news/664935.asp
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 128fa_FACT
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10301/ai ... mb=default
http://www.msnbc.com/news/664935.asp
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 128fa_FACT
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10301/ai ... mb=default
You beat me to it
Unfortunately, the one article can't be opened in full anymore, but the New Yorker tells the same story. When it was reported on FOX, they called it an "accident"...
If you are wanting proof that the US has been funding the Taliban since inception, then you're going to have to research that on your own. There is more than enough sources out their... books, records of congress, etc.... that support this. This is common knowledge... just not something the American government wants to advertise.
PluggyRug @ Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:14 pm
Calgary123 Calgary123:
cubalibre cubalibre:
No he is talking about the US co-ordinated, pakistan carried out, airlift of taliban soldiers and top lieutenants
http://www.msnbc.com/news/664935.asp
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 128fa_FACT
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10301/ai ... mb=default
http://www.msnbc.com/news/664935.asp
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 128fa_FACT
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10301/ai ... mb=default
You beat me to it
Unfortunately, the one article can't be opened in full anymore, but the New Yorker tells the same story. When it was reported on FOX, they called it an "accident"...
If you are wanting proof that the US has been funding the Taliban since inception, then you're going to have to research that on your own. There is more than enough sources out their... books, records of congress, etc.... that support this. This is common knowledge... just not something the American government wants to advertise.
Thats proof, pull the other one, or read them yourself.
Just reports of Pakistani airlifts, questionable at that.
So where is the proof of US funding, and whilst we are at it you have not yet handed in you're homework on the heat and stress calculations.
Hardy @ Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:15 pm
Calgary123 Calgary123:
You beat me to it
Unfortunately, the one article can't be opened in full anymore, but the New Yorker tells the same story. When it was reported on FOX, they called it an "accident"...
Unfortunately, the one article can't be opened in full anymore, but the New Yorker tells the same story. When it was reported on FOX, they called it an "accident"...
These links might help.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 128fa_FACT
http://www.rediff.com/us/2002/jan/24ny2.htm
Hardy @ Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:24 pm
$1:
The Times of India
March 07, 2001
LONDON: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here.
"I warned them that we were creating a monster," Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars said at the conference here last week on "Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia."
Harrison said: "The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan." The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan's demand that they should decide how this money should be spent, Harrison said.
Harrison, who spoke before the Taliban assault on the Buddha statues was launched, told the gathering of security experts that he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan. "They told me these people were fanatical, and the more fierce they were the more fiercely they would fight the Soviets," he said. "I warned them that we were creating a monster."
Harrison, who has written five books on Asian affairs and US relations with Asia, has had extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia. Harrison was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace between 1974 and 1996.
Harrison who is now senior fellow with The Century Foundation recalled a conversation he had with the late Gen Zia-ul Haq of Pakistan. "Gen Zia spoke to me about expanding Pakistan's sphere of influence to control Afghanistan, then Uzbekistan and Tajikstan and then Iran and Turkey," Harrison said. That design continues, he said. Gen.Mohammed Aziz who was involved in that Zia plan has been elevated now to a key position by Chief Executive, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Harrison said.
The old associations between the intelligence agencies continue, Harrison said. "The CIA still has close links with the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence)."
Today that money and those weapons have helped build up the Taliban, Harrison said. "The Taliban are not just recruits from 'madrassas' (Muslim theological schools) but are on the payroll of the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence, the intelligence wing of the Pakistani government)." The Taliban are now "making a living out of terrorism."
Harrison said the UN Security Council resolution number 1333 calls for an embargo on arms to the Taliban. "But it is a resolution without teeth because it does not provide sanctions for non-compliance," he said. "The US is not backing the Russians who want to give more teeth to the resolution."
Now it is Pakistan that "holds the key to the future of Afghanistan," Harrison said. The creation of the Taliban was central to Pakistan's "pan-Islamic vision," Harrison said.
It came after "the CIA made the historic mistake of encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan," he said. The creation of the Taliban had been "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," he said. "Pakistan has been building up Afghan collaborators who will sustain Pakistan," he said.
March 07, 2001
LONDON: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here.
"I warned them that we were creating a monster," Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars said at the conference here last week on "Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia."
Harrison said: "The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan." The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan's demand that they should decide how this money should be spent, Harrison said.
Harrison, who spoke before the Taliban assault on the Buddha statues was launched, told the gathering of security experts that he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan. "They told me these people were fanatical, and the more fierce they were the more fiercely they would fight the Soviets," he said. "I warned them that we were creating a monster."
Harrison, who has written five books on Asian affairs and US relations with Asia, has had extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia. Harrison was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace between 1974 and 1996.
Harrison who is now senior fellow with The Century Foundation recalled a conversation he had with the late Gen Zia-ul Haq of Pakistan. "Gen Zia spoke to me about expanding Pakistan's sphere of influence to control Afghanistan, then Uzbekistan and Tajikstan and then Iran and Turkey," Harrison said. That design continues, he said. Gen.Mohammed Aziz who was involved in that Zia plan has been elevated now to a key position by Chief Executive, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Harrison said.
The old associations between the intelligence agencies continue, Harrison said. "The CIA still has close links with the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence)."
Today that money and those weapons have helped build up the Taliban, Harrison said. "The Taliban are not just recruits from 'madrassas' (Muslim theological schools) but are on the payroll of the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence, the intelligence wing of the Pakistani government)." The Taliban are now "making a living out of terrorism."
Harrison said the UN Security Council resolution number 1333 calls for an embargo on arms to the Taliban. "But it is a resolution without teeth because it does not provide sanctions for non-compliance," he said. "The US is not backing the Russians who want to give more teeth to the resolution."
Now it is Pakistan that "holds the key to the future of Afghanistan," Harrison said. The creation of the Taliban was central to Pakistan's "pan-Islamic vision," Harrison said.
It came after "the CIA made the historic mistake of encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan," he said. The creation of the Taliban had been "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," he said. "Pakistan has been building up Afghan collaborators who will sustain Pakistan," he said.
Calgary123 @ Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:33 pm
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Calgary123 Calgary123:
cubalibre cubalibre:
No he is talking about the US co-ordinated, pakistan carried out, airlift of taliban soldiers and top lieutenants
http://www.msnbc.com/news/664935.asp
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 128fa_FACT
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10301/ai ... mb=default
http://www.msnbc.com/news/664935.asp
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 128fa_FACT
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10301/ai ... mb=default
You beat me to it
Unfortunately, the one article can't be opened in full anymore, but the New Yorker tells the same story. When it was reported on FOX, they called it an "accident"...
If you are wanting proof that the US has been funding the Taliban since inception, then you're going to have to research that on your own. There is more than enough sources out their... books, records of congress, etc.... that support this. This is common knowledge... just not something the American government wants to advertise.
Thats proof, pull the other one, or read them yourself.
Just reports of Pakistani airlifts, questionable at that.
So where is the proof of US funding, and whilst we are at it you have not yet handed in you're homework on the heat and stress calculations.
What is your definition of proof then? I suppose I would need to get the pilot, as well as GWB to appear before the Supreme court, then admit it in front of the world on national TV before you would consider it to be fact.
Funny how guys like you believe (and some still do
) in WMD's when the media tells a story you want to hear... but if its not to your taste? hmm... can't be true.
And it looks like Hardy already pulled it you lazy ass...
And if you are waiting for me to do my "homework?"
That was actually pretty funny... I'll give you that.
You know what kind of work I do Pluggy... I'm in no position to cross sabers with you when it comes to engineering.
I know when to pick a fight... and as well when to walk away from one.
EyeBrock @ Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:10 pm
Calgary123 Calgary123:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Calgary123 Calgary123:
cubalibre cubalibre:
No he is talking about the US co-ordinated, pakistan carried out, airlift of taliban soldiers and top lieutenants
http://www.msnbc.com/news/664935.asp
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 128fa_FACT
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10301/ai ... mb=default
http://www.msnbc.com/news/664935.asp
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 128fa_FACT
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10301/ai ... mb=default
You beat me to it
Unfortunately, the one article can't be opened in full anymore, but the New Yorker tells the same story. When it was reported on FOX, they called it an "accident"...
If you are wanting proof that the US has been funding the Taliban since inception, then you're going to have to research that on your own. There is more than enough sources out their... books, records of congress, etc.... that support this. This is common knowledge... just not something the American government wants to advertise.
Thats proof, pull the other one, or read them yourself.
Just reports of Pakistani airlifts, questionable at that.
So where is the proof of US funding, and whilst we are at it you have not yet handed in you're homework on the heat and stress calculations.
What is your definition of proof then? I suppose I would need to get the pilot, as well as GWB to appear before the Supreme court, then admit it in front of the world on national TV before you would consider it to be fact.Funny how guys like you believe (and some still do
) in WMD's when the media tells a story you want to hear... but if its not to your taste? hmm... can't be true. And it looks like Hardy already pulled it you lazy ass...
And if you are waiting for me to do my "homework?"
That was actually pretty funny... I'll give you that. You know what kind of work I do Pluggy... I'm in no position to cross sabers with you when it comes to engineering.
I know when to pick a fight... and as well when to walk away from one.
So as usual you have no proof that backs up anything you say.
I never would have expected that.......
Calgary123 @ Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:34 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Calgary123 Calgary123:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Calgary123 Calgary123:
cubalibre cubalibre:
No he is talking about the US co-ordinated, pakistan carried out, airlift of taliban soldiers and top lieutenants
http://www.msnbc.com/news/664935.asp
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 128fa_FACT
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10301/ai ... mb=default
http://www.msnbc.com/news/664935.asp
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 128fa_FACT
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10301/ai ... mb=default
You beat me to it
Unfortunately, the one article can't be opened in full anymore, but the New Yorker tells the same story. When it was reported on FOX, they called it an "accident"...
If you are wanting proof that the US has been funding the Taliban since inception, then you're going to have to research that on your own. There is more than enough sources out their... books, records of congress, etc.... that support this. This is common knowledge... just not something the American government wants to advertise.
Thats proof, pull the other one, or read them yourself.
Just reports of Pakistani airlifts, questionable at that.
So where is the proof of US funding, and whilst we are at it you have not yet handed in you're homework on the heat and stress calculations.
What is your definition of proof then? I suppose I would need to get the pilot, as well as GWB to appear before the Supreme court, then admit it in front of the world on national TV before you would consider it to be fact.Funny how guys like you believe (and some still do
) in WMD's when the media tells a story you want to hear... but if its not to your taste? hmm... can't be true. And it looks like Hardy already pulled it you lazy ass...
And if you are waiting for me to do my "homework?"
That was actually pretty funny... I'll give you that. You know what kind of work I do Pluggy... I'm in no position to cross sabers with you when it comes to engineering.
I know when to pick a fight... and as well when to walk away from one.
So as usual you have no proof that backs up anything you say.
I never would have expected that.......
Was I talking to you?
In any case... try reading the articles that were posted, and understand that Pluggy was challenging me to engineering puzzle that is out of my area of expertise... something I'm not afraid to admit.
But know that doesn't mean the argument is dead... I posted a research paper that supports the CT case... I'm sure you overlooked that one as well.
Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 Next