Hillary Clinton ADMITS

[poncho]

that the US and Pakistan created the Mujahaddin (aka Al CIA DUH)

I happened to be flipping through the channels last night, when I stumbled onto this interview.

I chose to watch, as I was curious as to what the justification for the recent decision to give Pakistan billions of dollars, was going to be.

Needless to say, my jaw dropped when Hillary admitted with a straight face, that the US and Pakistan created the supposed enemies we now face.

This is obviously something that most of us knew, but to watch them admit it, and use it as a reason to stay there and or expand, is beyond insanity.

The hits just keep on comin'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0Cc3LfhQ-o&feature=player_embedded#

Note: She admits it @ 3 minutes, but the whole interview is quite telling, if you can stomach it.

SOURCE

Yes folks we need to keep sending more troops and more money to fight the enemy we created. Now that is what I call an insane foreign policy. Are we fighting a "war on terror" or a war on ourselves?

 

[Crabtownboy]

that the US and Pakistan created the Mujahaddin (aka Al CIA DUH)

I thought everyone knew this to be true. We backed the Mujahaddin to fight the Russians. This is really old news.

It is an old, old story in Afghanistan. The British tried the same thing in their misadventures there a century or two ago. It always came back to bite them.

 

[preachinjesus]

One of the worst decisions by the Reagan administration (an administration that got a lot more things right than wrong.) Granted things got started under Carter but Reagan could have ended it. You don't use religious fervor to create a rebellion. You usually can't contain the religion or fervor.

 

[Revmitchell]

that the US and Pakistan created the Mujahaddin (aka Al CIA DUH)

I happened to be flipping through the channels last night, when I stumbled onto this interview.

I chose to watch, as I was curious as to what the justification for the recent decision to give Pakistan billions of dollars, was going to be.

Needless to say, my jaw dropped when Hillary admitted with a straight face, that the US and Pakistan created the supposed enemies we now face.

This is obviously something that most of us knew, but to watch them admit it, and use it as a reason to stay there and or expand, is beyond insanity.

The hits just keep on comin'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0Cc3LfhQ-o&feature=player_embedded#

Note: She admits it @ 3 minutes, but the whole interview is quite telling, if you can stomach it.

SOURCE

Yes folks we need to keep sending more troops and more money to fight the enemy we created. Now that is what I call an insane foreign policy. Are we fighting a "war on terror" or a war on ourselves?

I'm not for spending the funds over there. There are a lot of reasons for that but most of all we just dont have it. As far as supporting them in the past....so what?

 

[poncho]

I thought everyone knew this to be true. We backed the Mujahaddin to fight the Russians. This is really old news.

It is an old, old story in Afghanistan. The British tried the same thing in their misadventures there a century or two ago. It always came back to bite them.

Yeah, but we're different. We won't "cut and run" like all those other empires that found out why Afghanistan is called the "graveyard of empires".

We'll stay and guard the poppy fields, spending money left and right and spilling blood (ours and theirs) till we go bankrupt. We'll neither win nor lose, we'll just run out of money and collapse like the USSR.

Insane foreign policy. And yeah it did start under Carter who learned all about foreign policy through the Tri Laterals. A globalist organization which still has control of our foreign policy. Hmmmm. You suppose that's why this insane policy never changes for the good? We have people loyal only to the "international community" in charge of drafting the foreign policy of the United States of america.

INSANE!!!

I don't guess we made alot of friends when we resorted to a terrorism campaign against Iran in 1953 either. Yes you read that right we or the CIA rather (Kermit Roosevelt) used a false flag terrorism campaign against the Iranian government in 1953. And there's rumors we're at it again using a different terrorist group today. Jundallah

Wonder if they'll take Al Cia Duh's place as enemy number one when they run out?

 

[NiteShift]

Here we go again.

It has always been known that the US and other countries funded the Afghan Mujahaddin, the Afghans fighting a guerilla war against the Soviets . Former Mujahaddin, mostly of the Pashtun tribe were the nucleus of the Taliban, which we are still fighting.

The Afghan Arabs, Al Qaeda, (or Al Cia Duh as you like to call them), operated independently of the Afghans, did not receive funding, weapons or training from the US. As Ayman al Zawahiri said, "Not one Penny". You are conflating again.

 

[Don]

Here we go again.

It has always been known that the US and other countries funded the Afghan Mujahaddin, the Afghans fighting a guerilla war against the Soviets . Former Mujahaddin, mostly of the Pashtun tribe were the nucleus of the Taliban, which we are still fighting.

The Afghan Arabs, Al Qaeda, (or Al Cia Duh as you like to call them), operated independently of the Afghans, did not receive funding, weapons or training from the US. As Ayman al Zawahiri said, "Not one Penny". You are conflating again.

Thank you for adding some intelligence to this.

And for the record: The reason Mujahaddin are mostly of the Pashtun tribe is because the Pashtuns are the largest tribe, and therefore make up the largest percentage of the population of Afghanistan.

AND PLEASE, do not make the mistake of immediately translating this story to mean that the Mujahaddin are the problem. A large number of the Mujahaddin are members of the existing Afghanistan National Army and Afghanistan National Police. I personally worked with several of them.

Your "gee whiz" factoid of the day: There is a mandate that the "make-up" of the Afghan National Army has to have tribal percentages in each of their units; i.e., since Pashtuns are the largest population, they have a larger percentage, but all the tribes must be represented in each unit, in order to ensure that no particular unit becomes 100% of any particular tribe.

 

[poncho]

Here we go again.

It has always been known that the US and other countries funded the Afghan Mujahaddin, the Afghans fighting a guerilla war against the Soviets . Former Mujahaddin, mostly of the Pashtun tribe were the nucleus of the Taliban, which we are still fighting.

The Afghan Arabs, Al Qaeda, (or Al Cia Duh as you like to call them), operated independently of the Afghans, did not receive funding, weapons or training from the US. As Ayman al Zawahiri said, "Not one Penny". You are conflating again.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727#

 

[NiteShift]

And for the record: The reason Mujahaddin are mostly of the Pashtun tribe is because the Pashtuns are the largest tribe, and therefore make up the largest percentage of the population of Afghanistan.

I believe it was also a regional issue, as the former mujahaddin in the northern tribes opposed the Taliban, i.e. the Northern Alliance,

AND PLEASE, do not make the mistake of immediately translating this story to mean that the Mujahaddin are the problem. A large number of the Mujahaddin are members of the existing Afghanistan National Army and Afghanistan National Police. I personally worked with several of them.

Your "gee whiz" factoid of the day: There is a mandate that the "make-up" of the Afghan National Army has to have tribal percentages in each of their units; i.e., since Pashtuns are the largest population, they have a larger percentage, but all the tribes must be represented in each unit, in order to ensure that no particular unit becomes 100% of any particular tribe.

There is a recent story in the news of a Pushtun tribe coming out against the Taliban - LINK - “The Taliban have been trying to destroy our tribe, and they are taking money from us, and they are taking our sons to fight,” said Malik Niaz, a Shinwari elder. “If they defy us now, we will defeat them.”

 

[carpro]

Yeah, but we're different. We won't "cut and run" like all those other empires that found out why Afghanistan is called the "graveyard of empires".

We'll stay and guard the poppy fields, spending money left and right and spilling blood (ours and theirs) till we go bankrupt. We'll neither win nor lose, we'll just run out of money and collapse like the USSR.

We won't go bankrupt from anything we do in Afghanistan.

We'll go bankrupt from how stupidly we spend money here at home.

 

[billwald]

The last two trillion we spent at home ended up in Swiss banks and on the international stock markets.

 

[NiteShift]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727#

I have seen parts of this documentary. They have a definate point of view, an agenda you might say. But after the program was aired Adam Curtis, the producer, took a Q&A on BBC and was asked the following question:

"Do you believe it possible that the American Neo-Cons engineered the 9/11 atrocity as a catalyst for their program?"

"No" he said.

 

[poncho]

I have seen parts of this documentary. They have a definate point of view, an agenda you might say. But after the program was aired Adam Curtis, the producer, took a Q&A on BBC and was asked the following question:

"Do you believe it possible that the American Neo-Cons engineered the 9/11 atrocity as a catalyst for their program?"

"No" he said.

Show me a documentary that doesn't have an agenda.

What does the neocons or 9/11 have to do with the CIA creating Al Qaeda?



"Osama bin Laden is no more a true representative of Islam than General Mladic, who commanded the Serbian forces, could be held up as an example of Christianity. After all, it is written in the Qur'an that we were made into different peoples not that we might despise each other, but that we might understand each other.

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

The danger now is that the west's current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error." SOURCE

 

[NiteShift]

What does the neocons or 9/11 have to do with the CIA creating Al Qaeda?

Conditioned reflex.

Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.

Bin laden said in a 2001 interview that aired on Al Jazeera:

"The name al Qaeda was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed."

 

[poncho]

Conditioned reflex.



Bin laden said in a 2001 interview that aired on Al Jazeera:

"The name al Qaeda was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed."

Al Jazeera?

Read page 168 in this book. The New Jackals

 

[NiteShift]

Read page 168 in this book. The New Jackals

Yes, well unnamed sources can be found who will allege practically anything I guess. ‘Sources’ were wrong about the origin of the name Al Qaeda, and they are probably wrong about a great deal. But the CIA denies they armed Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda denies that they were armed by the CIA.


CIA formed their Bin Laden tracking unit in 1996. Michael Scheuer, who was in charge of the unit said that “We had run across bin Laden in a lot of different places, not personally but in terms of his influence, either through rhetoric, through audiotapes, through passports, through money-he seemed to turn up everywhere. So when we [created the unit], the first responsibility was to find out if he was a threat.”

The CIA didn’t know who bin Laden was and set about finding out in 1996, long after the Afghanistan war.

Nobody denies that the US provided arms to the Afghan mujahidin. I remember seeing video of them shooting stingers at Russian helicopters on the evening news. But the idea that CIA created Al Qaeda, an Arab-based group, is just a concoction.

 

[poncho]

Okay let's just forget about Bin Laden for now.

We're funding our own enemies, do you think this is a wise policy? How do we the American people benefit from it?

 

[NiteShift]

I don't know what specifically you're referring to, but it has always been done by governments who were doing what seemed to be helpful at the time. As an example, during the French & Indian War the French provided arms to many of the Indian tribes and encouraged them to attack British stockades and American settlers. Not much later, the British provided the very same Indians with muskets, powder and other supplies so that they could attack American settlements and militia. Alliances change. Currently there are probably nations or groups receiving US aid who would gladly shoot us on sight.

 

[poncho]

I don't know what specifically you're referring to, but it has always been done by governments who were doing what seemed to be helpful at the time. As an example, during the French & Indian War the French provided arms to many of the Indian tribes and encouraged them to attack British stockades and American settlers. Not much later, the British provided the very same Indians with muskets, powder and other supplies so that they could attack American settlements and militia. Alliances change. Currently there are probably nations or groups receiving US aid who would gladly shoot us on sight.

http://www.thenation.com/article/how-us-funds-taliban

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/afghanistan/090902/usaid-taliban-funding

http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2009/08/13/who-is-funding-the-afghan-taliban-you-dont-want-to-know/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/may/25/afghans-believe-us-funding-taliban

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/06/23/US_funds_going_to_Taliban/

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/06/22/Investigators_claim_US_money_is_funding_Afghan_Taliban/?section=TopStoriesWorldwide&template=worldnews%2Findex.txt

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/international/us-indirectly-funding-afghan-warlords-915

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/congress-us-funding-taliban/

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/cchrp/sbhrap/forum/article_0001/TheNation_USFundsTaliban.pdf

http://trcb.com/news/israel/general...nce-funding-taliban-egypt-bans-gaza-28737.htm

The above is what I was refering too. Ya think this is what the founders of the USA had in mind when they warned us about forming entangling alliances?

If governments have been doing this for years you'd think any sane person would ask them why they still continue on with policies that are doomed from the start to fail.

We need a sane foreign policy. One that has been formulated by people who are loyal to the United States of America instead of international organizations like the CFR, United Nations and the Tri Laterals.

 

[Dragoon68]

that the US and Pakistan created the Mujahaddin (aka Al CIA DUH) ...

The Mujahideen were a collection of various opposition groups that rebelled against Soviet backed "Democratic Republic" and then ended up fighting against each other. We certainly did provide support to the opposition of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan but certainly did not and does not constitute support for Al-Qaeda which didn't even come into existence until a couple of decades after the Soviet defeat. Let's get the facts right even if Clinton doesn't! To say otherwise implies that we created an enemy just to have one to fight - I don't think that's impossible in a corrupt world but I don't think it was the case with this war. I think times have changed and not all "friends" we make can be trusted forever - we know that from personal relationships don't we? We fall for smiles a lot!

Does this mean I think we should sink our fortunes and lives into Afghanistan's future without limits? No, it does not! But, remember, according to all the naysayers of the war in Iraq this one - Afghanistan - is the one we should be fighting. Consistency in policy would be nice for the poor dumb you know what that has to go fight these wars. Either we should be in or be out. That's my beef with our so-called leaders in Washington and it's not much different that the previous great war I fought in as a poor dumb you know what. They - Congress and the Executive - are all a bunch of talkers without integrity, selflessness, or guts to carry through what they start. They just want to play politics with it. I don't expect Obama, and his little henchwoman Clinton, to do better. If we're not going to do what's necessary then I say go home and shut up about it.

And, by the way, I agree we should be much more wary of "entangling alliances" that can lead to events we didn't expect. We need some risk evaluation up front before we pick sides and commit to things we may not have the will to support.