Posted on 10/11/2004 4:39:49 PM PDT by Ed Current
Bin Laden might be even too young to play prominent role in 1980s. But the help went to the forces which later were associated with bin Laden.
LOL!
So how are you this evening?
Again, no.
After the Soviets were kicked out of Afghanistan, those we had supported attempted, and failed to run the country.
In reaction, a group, either funded by Pakistan, or made up of devout Muslim religious students, depending on who you want to believe (and probably both) set about bringing law and order to the anarchy around them.
They brought rather alot more then that, as these fighters were the Taliban.
Within a few years that had taken over most of the country. The leader of the opposition to the Taliban was a man named Ahmad Shah Masood.
Masood had been perhaps the most important of the Afghan mujahadeen fighting the Soviets, and was a key American ally.
Shortly before the 9/11 attack, AQ assassinated Masood. Had they not done so, he would today be at least returned to his role as the defense minister of Afghanistan which he had held between the fall of the Soviets and the rise of the Taliban.
One can criticize Clinton and Bush 41 for allowing our former allies to fail in Afghanistan, and then (the latter)doing nothing about he rise of the Taliban, but frankly that is nothing more then a ridiculous use of 20/20 hindsight.
As for your notion that the US helped the Taliban and AQ, well, such an absurd notion should be left for the tinfoil hat brigades within the fever swamp of the far left.
I'm awrite, shugg --- How're yew?
I've been listening to different kinds of folk music lately -- expanding my horizons. My new favorite musician is Bela Fleck -- amazing banjo player!
I'm winding down after finally finishing and posting the article I've been working on the last month. Watching the football game here. I'm afraid I'm ignorant on banjo music, LOL! Is there a sample clip of Fleck online somewhere?
It's a complicated issue, but I'll give it a shot. Neocons (who can come from any ethnic group) are basically those who would be described as "right-liberals" in political science terms. The neocons consist mainly of former liberal Democrats (of the FDR variety) who were expelled from the Democratic Party in the late 1970s for wanting to resist Soviet expansionism - the date when the hard-left siezed control of the Democratic Party. Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson was sort of the prototype of today's neocon.
While these people are believers in many of the basic tenets of liberalism (big government, pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda, anti-2nd amendment, etc., the do believe in a strong defense for the US and its allies (like Israel). That is why, starting in the late 70s early 80s, many left the Democrats to join the Republicans, because the viewed a strong defense as the top priority. (Against the Soviet Union then, against the Jihadis now.) I think of them as the truly loyal opposition (they still at least believe in defending the country - despite the fact that they often resort to the sort of iberal Wilsonian and Internationalist arguments mentioned in the article. Patriotic liberals, really.
No Ping?
I'm afraid I'm ignorant on banjo music, LOL! Is there a sample clip of Fleck online somewhere?
So was I until a couple weeks ago. Here's a link, it's on Amazon. He has an electic, bluesy sound -- not just strictly bluegrass.
I guess the Neo-libs are so desperate to pigeonhold Republicans because they can't stand it when people who define themselves as conservatives make resonable compromises and appeal to a broader population.
I'm sorry America and her people come before the interest of a myopic cultural dinosaur.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm
...
He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.
...
And what my little leftist?
And according to Middle Eastern expert Youza Wacko, Jews use the blood of Muslims to make their holy food.
Why, exactly are you trolling here? DU not keeping you busy enough that you have to spread their lies here too?
Oh, and don't forget the tin foil hat...Donald Rumsfeld might be aiming his mind control rays at you even as we speak...
I'm not a leftist, I'm simply posting historical fact. The US, starting under Carter, funded the Afghan resistance, it's a fact. If you can't deal with facts you yourself are a leftist, in terms of the degree of empirical evidence upon which you base your opinions.
As a neo-con I find myself NOT recognizing this characterization - we all know neo-con is really a euphemism for "dirty Jew." Anyway, I do plead guilty to being a hawk first, a conservative second, and lastly being a Republican. My priorities are keeping this country safe, advancing freedom, and helping a political party that helps to secure these twin objectives. For me always, country comes before party. And for the record, I haven't marched Left and I don't know of a neo-con who has.
Yes the US support some of the Afghan resistance. That however is not what you claimed my little troll.
The US did not support Osama, which is what you knowingly and falsely claimed.
Seriously, why do you leftist trolls try to come here and spew this crap? Do you really hate the US that much?
LOL, go back and read what I posted: if you don't apologize, you have the integrity of Clinton and Kerry all rolled into one.
You know if those throwing around "neocon" were simply arguing that Bush and the Reps could be, and should be, more effective in advancing the conservative domestic agenda I'd be the first to agree with them.
But it seems that the far left continues to be very successful at creating and using useful idiots.
Clearly, one has to wonder why else a small number of self proclaimed "conservatives" find the biggest danger to America to be not Osama Bin Laden or even John Kerry, but *George Bush*, and expend their efforts solely in such a manner as to try to damage the leadership of the Republican party and American conservatism.
A small clue for the thankfully small number of paleo so-called "conservatives" around here - getting John Kerry elected instead of George Bush isn't going to advance any element of the conservative agenda.
What troll? Trying to pull a slick willy?
You may not have slept with that woman, but you sure as hell were advancing that leftist boilerplate.
You leftists are NOT welcome here.
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.