Posted on 10/11/2004 4:39:49 PM PDT by Ed Current
I thought he said Moore distorted and edited...I think I understand where the "funding Bin Ladin" thing came from..the ISI connection..but not direct support for..He was only one of many then...The ISI really supported the Taliban if I recall..after the war with Russia.
Thank you. You are a real Freeper. I am not a troll... I hate Michael Moore with a passion and you can't find a single post where I support any of Moore's lies.
I don't think America needs to apologize for anything we did under Reagan and Bush in Afghanistan to win the Cold War in the 1980s. There were some intelligence mistakes in not recognizing the threat of Al Queda and the Taliban later on, but the serious mistakes came under the "watch" of Clinton. Backing the wrong side in the Balkans, for example, lobbing intentional misses in Bin Laden's direction in order to distract from personal scandal, etc., etc.
Clinton's legacy is 9/11.
I just hate it when I see misunderstanding among freepers who have a common goal....I try to go back and see where everyone is coming from..
I don't know how often you are here but we are being hit pretty hard with posters trying to throw out the neo con word or something and divide instead of unite...I question the timing this close to an election.
Yes, the ISI supported the Taliban, after the US abandoned Afghanistan to its own devices. They overthrew the government (well, it wasn't a very effective government) established by our allies after defeating the Soviets.
Mr Troll is parroting Moore's conclusion, which is all that matters. Presumably he's trying the old troll logic of a false splitting of the difference.
American did not support Osama. Mr Troll claimed he did. Case closed.
Mr Troll claimed he did.
should be
Mr Troll claimed we did.
This is not a fair assessment.IMHO..I am done and the namecalling is not helpful, my FRiend.
I read all three links. The first one just asserts "bin Laden didn't receive funding..." but there are plenty more naked assertions that say he *did*. In the very next paragraph it says how tight bin Laden was with Pakistani intelligence.
Swillhelm contorts "we funded bin Laden" (which we obviously did, probably directly, perhaps indirectly) in the 1980s into "we created Al Queda" which I don't believe to be the case nor I ever asserted to be the case.
The second link just quotes bin Laden saying "no, I didn't take CIA money" - duh, he said he didn't do 9/11, he said he did 9/11, he's got all of the credibility of John Kerry, you can probably find a candid tape where he brags about spending our money against us, which no doubt he did in some form, simply because our money was flowing all around him at the time he was fighting the Soviets.
I'm old enough to remember Ronald Reagan calling the Mujahadeen "Freedom Fighters." Not as if in that part of the world we have some ideal characters to deal with.
I agree name calling is a waste of time. Sorry to have sunk to that level, but I was called "troll" a few times with exactly zero justification.
I disagree. And quite strongly.
The only way to deal with trolling is to show the trolls they are not welcome.
Much like at the zoo, one should not feed the animals.
Engage in trolling and YOU WILL BE CALLED ON IT. This is a hard lesson you will pick up on FR.
Though I see you are flipping and flopping now. Hardly surprising. Perhaps if you hadn't been so eager to slam this great nation, you would not have seen yourself so obviously made a fool of.
He is a troll because you disagree over Bin Ladin receiving directly or indirect CIA help along with many others through their support of the ISI during the 80s against the Soviets during the Afghan wars??..I have bothered to read a lot of his posts...He is not a troll nor a leftist.IMHO..
We did not "create" Bin Laden, we did not create AlQueda..no more than we "created Stalin" and his purges or "funded" the Cuban missile crisis because we once funded the USSR to help us fight WW2..
We made huge miscalculations as to the Red menace and how it would affect us nationally and internationally after that war and especially after Vietnam and the international communists still undermine us here at home.The left and Islam are an unholy alliance.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,582274,00.html
I found a treasure trove of articles in google.
http://www.lib.ecu.edu/govdoc/terrorism.html
I think the notion that Bush is somehow controlled by a gang of nefarious neocons is frankly absurd. That theory is so far out to lunch that it has the effect of discrediting those Paleos who repeat it. (Buchanan and his follwers.) Bush is his own man. Neoconservatives are influential because many are professional pundits and columnists, There are also several Pentagon advisers (Wolfowitz, Pearle, etc.) who are neocons.
This is actually fairly consistent with the fact that many neocons are basically former liberal Democrats who happen to believe in a strong defense and a free-matket economy (though they often support big-government as well), two major areas where they agree with conservatives in general. The Dems have been taken over by the hard-core, anti-American left, and the older patriotic liberals forced out. I think of necons as patriotic liberal Democrats who joined the Republicans after the leftist Putsch in the Dem Party in the 1970s - the loyal opposition, if you will.
The notion that "neocon" is a code-word for "Jewish" is really an attempt by neocons like Frum to slience any criticism of their liberal positions - a classic leftist smear tactic. There are Gentile neocons (George Will) and Jewish Paleos (Paul Gottfried). Neoconservates are quite liberal of many issues - typically social issues like RKBA, abortion, the gay agenda, multiculturalism, and racial preferences. These are areas where they often part company with both Bush and other conservatives. (Though Bush sides with them on multiculturalism, racial preferences, and RKBA.) Support of racial preferences, multiculturalism, the gay agenda, and gun control are not conservative positions - they are liberal ones.
The problem with classifications of this kind is that hardly anyone fits perfectly into one camp or the other - Bush being a perfect example. David Horowitz is another. He's generally very conservative and solidly opposed to the left (where he began life), but he's not opposed to gay marriage. Some folks say he's a neocon, but I really think he's too conservative on most issues to qualify.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.