Those were considered "mujahadeen fighters" which exsisted well before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Futhermore, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are two different things and are only associated as they formed an alliance of convienence. Bin Laden was given permission to have al-Qaeda training camps by Mullah Omar prior to and after his operations in Sudan. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was who convinced Bin Laden to target his "mujahadeen fighters" on the U.S. (notably it's civilians and economic system) after the Saudis denied him the right to push the Iraqis from Kuwait in 1990-1991.

To say that we "created" al Qaeda blantantly disregards the plethora of other circumstances that influenced their creation as they are today.

 

Did the US gather these people, no. Is the US responisble for creating todays' military tactical rendition of the Al Queda network, YES. That's what I was getting at in gross simplification. With a response like yours, I would think a smart guy like you would have figured that out. :bananen_smilies031:

Btw, your explanation somehow left out the part about US seed money, offical CIA training, US weapon funding or even a connection to the key figures in the current administration who have been there from day one. Interesting.

 

Well, there was a time when Al-Qaeda had no bad blood with the U.S. much the same as there was a time when the ***** didn't either. We're at war with Al-Qaeda now for obvious reasons, that said would you say America caused the Hitler problem too? Simply because we're at war with a common enemy doesn't mean we're the reason for their existance.

There is no doubt that America played a hand in making them what they are today. The CIAs aid to them (notably:Stinger and Symtex which we later tried to buy back) had an influence but their ideology would have put them against us at one time or another without question. How can you avoid war with a people that wishes to send the world back 1000 years to the rule of the Caliphate and at the same time allows the use of computers if used in fighting "the obligatory jihad"? The terrorists we face today (the Al-Qaeda type and not indigenious fighters strictly battling an occupation) are as contrary as the Westboro Baptist Church. They've distorted their religion to such lengths that it facilitates hate with almost anyone they choose as against "God's will". Their fundamentalists............it was bound to happen.

 

However, it DID happen with key members of this administration who's ties date back to the 70's.

Which brings me back to the point of this thread. Fear is a tactic used for control. It seems arbitrary to warn people of something when the officials you stand by have been made millionaires by a conflict which in fact they had underpinnings in.

Voting for these "followers" will only mean more of the same. Sacrificed American soldiers, innocent bystanders and richer key players.

That my friend is Politics 101, grab a book :129:

 

Wow, what started as a political debate turned to personal jabs pretty quickly. First I'd like to thank you for the condescending tone. Secondly, you drawing reference to the "key members" from the 70s isn't much ground to stand on as the only one with a legitimate issue is Rumsfeld. I'd agree with you that the Halliburton issues are borderline illegal and absolutely unethical. For Gulliani to claim that if he's elected would save us is pretty lame considering his city was attacked while he was mayor and while a Republican was in office further debasing his claims. I think any informed voter should be able to see through that (sadly the majority are not informed).

The fact that Cheney and Bush were millionaires has absolutely no bearing on why we were attacked. Their interests may have and at this rate probably did have an influence on the OIF proposal but that's getting away from the point. The fact of the matter is that Al-Qaeda was and always will be a vigilant enemy so long as they maintain their cause which shouldn't be hard as they hate all things non-Islam. I thinking you're putting way to much stress on this "conspiracy theory" thing as little of what you have said has had any pronouced affect on the issue at hand.

 

I'm not sure what the point of your argument is. And yes, arming a terrorist organization with CIA operatives is DIRECTLY connected to todays situation. As are the links along the way to Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld. Who mind you have all made a TREMENDOUS fortune since this war began. A war they all deemed necessary due to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Did they ever find those btw?

I would hate to see anymore people die due to the greed of a few. This administration is exactly why Gulianni thinks the way it does. Our past directly dictates our future. This situation proves that without a reasonable doubt.

My vote is for the people. Lets get out of Iraq, catch Bin Ladin, and focus our attention on the depleated american education, medicare and retirement issues at hand.

How is it that we happen to be in Iraq when Bin Ladin is in Afghanistan? There is your "conspiracy theory" :yeah:

 

Are you Forest Gump or something? You understand the concept of a border, right? Here's a hint. The natives didn't have one.

I remember my first beer. :lickice:

 

Ok, it directly relates however insignificant it may be. How many helocopters have been brought down with Stingers? How many planes has Symtex been smuggled onto? ZERO for both. Saying that we built al-Qaeda up as they are today would be like saying some uncle that bought Cho Seung-Hui a sling-shot when he was 10 is responsible for the VT tragedy. It's irrelevant and would have been an issue that would have come to light regardless.

As far as Bush and Cheney are concerned they were not even in the picture as far as global politics are concerned at the time. I think you've been reading too much on the ultra-liberal propaganda sites. Show me one valid and varified account of Bush or Cheney helping to build al-Qaeda as it is today.

I totally agree in reference to the first comment and the second is a dead horse. Saddam could have concealed those weapons anywhere and they more than likely will never be found. I think it isn't to hard to fathom that he at least had access to them.


That sounds good to me even though not a single candidate has bothered to stress that thus far in the political arena with any real sincerity.