Iraq How-to Manual Directed Arab Military Operatives In Afghanistan

Interesting....

 

How unfortunate we couldn't say whether it was written by the Iraqis, or merely intelligence they gathered.

I bet someone actually knows, but isn't saying...

 

Pakistani ISI? Weren't they buddies with the Taliban? It was one of their generals Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad that ordered Saeed Sheikh to send Atta a hundred grand just before 911. SOURCE

SOURCE

 

Iraqi influence in Afghanistan? Who knew!??!

 

For only $8.25 you can download the whole story in PDF format. I gotta write one of these I have a good imagination. Let's see; President Bush came from a planet that was fighting a planet in another galaxy called the Taliban. Both planets got destroyed in a mutual war and Bush and his Taliban rivals brought their family feud to Earth nd continued it using Alien weaponry that whipped up on Iraq. You don't really think we invented that stealth stuff, now do you.

 

So what do you think the relationship between the Pakistani ISI and the Taliban is? Where do you think the mujahidin got their arms to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Explain the non-silly version, Rm.

 

The evidence that people in the government of our nominal ally, Pakistan, have been aiding terrorists is pretty convincingi.

Much more than finding an Al-Qaeda document in Iraqi intelligence files. We have them in our intelligence files, too.

 

http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CI19Ag01.html

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:H2znsk7L4owJ:www.msnbc.com/news/636796.asp+isi+taliban&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/misc/janes011001_1_n.shtml

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501020506-233999,00.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-06-19-taliban-afghanistan-cover_x.htm

 

Well, that says it all.

While it's true that you don't need to know, I'd think you'd want to since you're commenting on it.

Since you don't know and don't care what the actual relationships are, why do you proclaim Poncho's post on theories "silly"? Seems to me that in order to be in a position of judging silliness or seriousness, one would have to actually know something and care.

Except, maybe, when they are true....

Which so-called support are you referring to? It would help if you'd be as specific as possible. What kind of proof would you accept? Do you ever read the links that are posted? Pay particular attention to the footnotes, which are usually links to the named sources. GlobalResearch.ca (linkie) is a progressive news organization, but, and this is important, they provide extensive documentation. If you don't like their point of view, you can still use the documentation they provide to tout your own (if it is supported by the evidence, minor point). In this case, here is a run-down of the sources:

1. Quoted in AFP, 18 May 2002.
2. There are numerous documents, which prove beyond doubt the links between Al Qaeda and successive U.S. administrations. See Centre for Research on Globalisation, Foreknowledge of 9-11: Compilation of key articles and documents, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG204A.html May 2002, section 3.
3. U.S. Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, Republican Party Committee, Congressional Press Release, Congress, 16 January 1997, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html . See also Michel Chossudovsky, ‘Osamagate', Centre for Research on Globalisation, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html , 9 October 2001.
4. See Centre for Research on Globalisation, Foreknowledge of 9-11: Compilation of key articles and documents, op. cit. section 3. See articles by Isabel Vincent, George Szamuely, Scott Taylor, Marina Domazetovska, Michel Chossudovsky, Umberto Pascali, Lara Marlowe and Macedonian dailies.
5. See Bin Laden Whereabouts Before 9-11, CBS Evening News with Dan Rather; CBS, 28 January 2002, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html Alexandra Richard, The CIA met bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai, Le Figaro. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html
6. The Boston Globe, 5 June 2002.
7. Fox News, 18 May 2002.
8. Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999. See also Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, Global Outlook, No. 1, 2002.
9. Statement of Brian Ross reporting on information conveyed to him by the FBI, ABC News, This Week, September 30, 2001.
10. The Times of India, Delhi, 9 October 2001.
11. AFP, 10 October 2001.
12. Amir Mateen, ISI Chief's Parleys continue in Washington, News Pakistan, 10 September 2001.
13. Federal News Service, 16 May 2002. Note that in the White House and CNN transcripts of Dr. Rice's press conference, the words "ISI chief" were transcribed respectively by a blank "--" and "(inaudible)" . Federal News Service Inc. which is a transcription Service of official documents provided a correct transcription, with a minor error in punctuation, which we corrected. The White House transcript is at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html . All three transcripts were verified by the author and are available on Nexus. Federal News Service documents are also available for a fee at http://www.fnsg.com/ For details on the transcripts, see text box below.
14. New York Times, 14 September 2002,
15. Stuart News Company Press Journal (Vero Beach, FL), September 12, 2001).
16. Miami Herald, 16 September 2001
17. Washington Post, 18 May 2002
18. White House Bulletin, 17 May 2002
19. Miami Herald, 21 June 2002
20. The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, 17 May 2002.
21. Washington Post, 17 May 2002.
22. Washington Post 29 January 2002.
23. Washington Post, 27 January 2002.

Now that you have a list of sources, please state why any particular one is discredited.

We know that he has been accused of that, but accusations are easy, cheap and mean nothing, to quote a certain someone.

Nor does it disprove it. I'm not sure what your point is here.

Bush hasn't been demonized; on the contrary, he has been given the extraordinary lattitude afforded war-time presidents. If we are again attacked by a militant group that was sponsored by the CIA during the Bush administration, then how would that not be a fair assessment?

That's fine, but who has claimed that we could have absolute security or no security measures? And what are you talking about as a former MP?

Even unnamed sources beat out "I don't need to know". This time the sources are not unnamed. How much understanding does that statement show?

 

Rarely will a neocom be so forthright about the objective. Well done.

Yeah, Americans are kind of touchy about people who want to take our liberities from us. Why do you think Bush's popularity continues to drop?

Historically, police aren't the best people to consult about liberties. Police are the last resort of a society. They are there to keep order, and sooner or later, they realize that order would be a lot easier to keep, if there weren't any freedoms. That's why they call them "police states." Why do you think Saddam did it?

Not that police are bad people. They are heroes, who risk their lives for us. But they tend to think in terms of security, rather than freedom. Have to, in order to do their jobs. Freedom makes their jobs harder.

 

By Michel Chossudovsky (linkie) to be specific.

You would know who they are if you'd only click on the link in post #13 above (and read the couple of paragraphs where they explain who they are) I provided you just so's you would know. That you didn't even bother is fully in keeping with your "I don't need to know".

A nobody? La-di-dah! And who, pray tell, are you?

If you'd looked, you'd know that it is actually a research paper (with actual footnotes to sources and everything) written by a Canadian economics professor at the University of Ottowa.

By paying attention.