Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
Al Qaeda works for the CIA..why shouldn't I believe this?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SpookdaddyOffline
Cuckoo
Joined: 24 May 2006
Total posts: 3932
Location: Midwich
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 30-05-2007 13:35    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seventh_Pilot wrote:
...I asked about SOXMIS in the hope you would demonstrate some knowledge of what they were about, in the context of your statement they have relevance, if you knew much about them you would see that...


My understanding, which, unlike yours, is not first-hand but harvested from Tony Geraghty's book BRIXMIS, is that SOXMIS was the Soviet equivalent of the former and therefore a liaison team mainly concerned with the observation of the opposing sides military formations under the terms of a reciprocal arrangement agreed between Soviet and British military commanders very soon after WW2. As such I too can't really see it's relevance.


Quote:
I have no desire to enlighten you or anybody else..


That's kind of becoming obvious.

(And I've gone through this thread again and reread the posts you appear to be reacting to and I have to say I'm intrigued as to why you've got so hot under the collar, particularly all this stuff about the Cold War and proxy assassinations. Go on, enlighten us, you've whet my curiosity).
Back to top
View user's profile 
SpookdaddyOffline
Cuckoo
Joined: 24 May 2006
Total posts: 3932
Location: Midwich
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 30-05-2007 14:00    Post subject: Reply with quote

Incidentally, the Tony Geraghty book is a great read, the stories in it outdoing any fictional accounts I've ever read relating to Cold War skullduggery. I'm going to dig it out of whichever box its in an reread it - thanks for the reminder.
Back to top
View user's profile 
IggoreOffline
Customize This !!!
Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Total posts: 414
Location: Shmocation
Age: 29
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 02-06-2007 07:09    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seventh_Pilot wrote:
For your information both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal under international law as is the continued occupation in both those countries...



How? And so what? Are you arguing that the legality of the campaigns of the "War on Terror" is somehow an important aspect to understand what fuel muslim radicalisme and terrorisme?

Because I strongly doubt that it matters for the arabe muslims if the UN said it was legal or not to bomb their homeland. International law isn't relevant for everyone.
Back to top
View user's profile 
waitewOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Total posts: 312
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 03-06-2007 07:15    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:
ted_bloody_maul wrote:
As pointed out on several occasions in those articles, however, the CIA were effectively working blind through the ISI. The idea that this means they created Al-Qaeda, let alone creating it so it could later be controlled like a puppet on a string, is well wide of the mark.

Did I wake you up, Ted_Bloody_Maul?

All that money, all that heavy armament, all the covert ops training, yet the CIA, or that sub-group within the organisation most heavily involved, have absolutely no idea what's really going on, yet they put their blind trust in foreign agents and agencies, to act on their behalf...

With no idea who's telling the truth, or what's true, or real, we live in a World in which Conspiracies don't occur and when they do, they are only instigated by foreigners.

Apparently. gaga


Bullocks!!as you Pommies say..they knew!The whole thing was planned from beginning to end in Washington.Who or what carried it out is iirelavant.The people in power that day are on the public record ,a year before ,calling for it.. "a new pearl harbor".so they could sell to the American people the idea of projecting American power to secure for American interests the world's energy reserves.Afganistan because it lies between the landlocked but oil/gas rich Caspian Basin & the Indian Ocean (the only way to profitably get it out..pipelines across Afganistan) Explains why the Soviets invaded Afganistan in December 1979 too..have you got a better expalination why the Soviets took this provacative act at the height of the cold war??world being on a hair trigger..MAD..course..one slight mistake & BOOM..of course NOT..had to be a BIG prize to make that move!Well,now we know what that BIG prize is!
Sorry,But Orwell warned us 60 years ago.yet we still sit on our hand & watch it happen..cameras everywhere..reading our mail (E & snail)..what's it gonna take?I'm sorry but the time for excuses has come & gone.You are either with freedom or against it.I guess most of you are against it..it didn't have to be this way.You made madeit this way.may your grandchildren forgive you...but why should they,I wouldn't!
Back to top
View user's profile 
SpookdaddyOffline
Cuckoo
Joined: 24 May 2006
Total posts: 3932
Location: Midwich
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 03-06-2007 10:41    Post subject: Reply with quote

waitew wrote:
...Afganistan because it lies between the landlocked but oil/gas rich Caspian Basin & the Indian Ocean (the only way to profitably get it out..pipelines across Afganistan) Explains why the Soviets invaded Afganistan in December 1979 too...


Seems an awful lot of bother to go to considering that during the Cold War the USSR not only had ports on the Caspian Sea but that, at a rough estimate, 80% of the coastline was controlled by Soviet states and that virtually all, if not all, the Caspian Basin was Soviet controlled. I'm a bit confused as to why they'd want to pipe it in the wrong direction through hostile territory and then ship it half way round the world back to themselves.


Last edited by Spookdaddy on 03-06-2007 10:45; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile 
Jerry_BOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Total posts: 8072
PostPosted: 03-06-2007 10:42    Post subject: Reply with quote

waitew wrote:
Explains why the Soviets invaded Afganistan in December 1979 too..have you got a better expalination why the Soviets took this provacative act at the height of the cold war??


Hmm - that sounds like conjecture. After all, the Soviet Union wasn't all that short of oil and gas reserves (Russia still isn't today, as it's a major energy exporter). As to it being a 'provacative act' - well, Afghanistan was already a puppet state of the Soviet Union. It was not as if they were invading an 'enemy' state.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
waitewOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Total posts: 312
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 04-06-2007 06:05    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never said the Soviets wanted the Caspian Basin oil for their own consumption LOL,in fact the thought never occured to me.They wanted it to sell on the world market!It's a cash cow!They wanted it so they wouldn't go broke!They wanted it to prevent the Soviet Union from collapsing.I thought that was obvious.I never dreamed anyone would think I was suggesting they needed it for their domestic use.
Back to top
View user's profile 
SpookdaddyOffline
Cuckoo
Joined: 24 May 2006
Total posts: 3932
Location: Midwich
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 04-06-2007 08:13    Post subject: Reply with quote

waitew wrote:
I never said the Soviets wanted the Caspian Basin oil for their own consumption LOL,in fact the thought never occured to me.They wanted it to sell on the world market!


Strange then that they don't appear to have much of a problem exporting huge amounts of gas and oil to the rest of us now, despite the fact that they don't have the apparently essential overland route control of Afghanistan would give them. Strange then that a political system not known for its reliance on the export market would undergo a costly war in order to secure a pipeline to supply a product that would be largely unsaleable due to the trade embargos that would be instigated as a result of it's actions.

I'm not saying oil is not, or might not be, part of the issue, then or now, but the constant assertion that everything is about oil seems to me to be the new orthodoxy and one that appears to disregard all other political, strategic, historic, not to mention, practical, issues.

Nazi Germany needed to secure the oilfields of Baku in order to prosecute its war, however that war was not instigated to secure the oilfields of Baku. Although oil is undoubtedly an important factor it seems, at least to me, not to be the end of all argument and in this particular case it ignores every other factor involved in a troubled regional relationship that stretches back through time from the era of the Soviets to Tsarist Russia.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Jerry_BOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Total posts: 8072
PostPosted: 04-06-2007 08:52    Post subject: Reply with quote

waitew wrote:
I never said the Soviets wanted the Caspian Basin oil for their own consumption LOL,in fact the thought never occured to me.They wanted it to sell on the world market!It's a cash cow!They wanted it so they wouldn't go broke!They wanted it to prevent the Soviet Union from collapsing.I thought that was obvious.I never dreamed anyone would think I was suggesting they needed it for their domestic use.


What makes you think that the Soviet Union was in danger of collapsing at the time? Seems to me that you're desperately trying to shoehorn the 'it's all about oil' idea into the equation.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 04-06-2007 09:00    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry_B wrote:
...

What makes you think that the Soviet Union was in danger of collapsing at the time? Seems to me that you're desperately trying to shoehorn the 'it's all about oil' idea into the equation.

The fact that the USSR did, in fact, collapse shortly after, might be considered a bit of a give away. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile 
ted_bloody_maulOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 May 2003
Total posts: 4592
Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 04-06-2007 09:09    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:

The fact that the USSR did, in fact, collapse shortly after, might be considered a bit of a give away. Wink


It collapsed more than a decade after, and partly due to, the invasion though. As far as I'm aware nobody has put forward the theory that the Soviet Union collapsed because it failed to secure energy resources.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Jerry_BOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Total posts: 8072
PostPosted: 04-06-2007 09:15    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes - the Soviet invasion took place in 1979; the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 04-06-2007 09:37    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry_B wrote:
Yes - the Soviet invasion took place in 1979; the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Is 12 years such a long time in the forward planning of a One Party Totalitarian State, like the USSR?

Perhaps, the Soviets knew something that we didn't? Or, are you suggesting that they had no idea about the state of their economy, or the importance of the energy reserves in the region, not just Afghanistan, but the whole Muslim majority south of the USSR, to the continued existence of the State, both economically and strategically?

The USSR's Afghanistan War has been likened to the USA's Vietnam misadventure, but strategically, the USSR's attempt to bring Afghanistan to heel made more sense. The rise of the new Islamic radicalism obviously worried them greatly.
Back to top
View user's profile 
coldelephant
PostPosted: 04-06-2007 12:00    Post subject: Reply with quote

Getting back on topic here - I could not find out why the USSR collapsed anyway - I was watching Apocalypse Now - Redux last night and saw a French family discussing how the Americans created the Viet Cong.

So I now have two groups in my mind that have allegedly been created by the USA - the Viet Cong and Al Queda.

Are there any others?
Back to top
Jerry_BOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Total posts: 8072
PostPosted: 04-06-2007 12:33    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:
Is 12 years such a long time in the forward planning of a One Party Totalitarian State, like the USSR?


You may need to become more familiar with how 'forward-thinking' the USSR was. If anything, the SU had a history of getting things wrong.

Quote:
Perhaps, the Soviets knew something that we didn't? Or, are you suggesting that they had no idea about the state of their economy, or the importance of the energy reserves in the region, not just Afghanistan, but the whole Muslim majority south of the USSR, to the continued existence of the State, both economically and strategically?

The USSR's Afghanistan War has been likened to the USA's Vietnam misadventure, but strategically, the USSR's attempt to bring Afghanistan to heel made more sense. The rise of the new Islamic radicalism obviously worried them greatly.


It seems to me that you're trying to back-engineer current outlooks and place them on the past, to make it fit the 'war for oil' hypothesis. The idea of Islamic radicalism simply wasn't an aspect of the picture of the time. It's not something that would have bothered the SU. From what took place at the time, the initial Soviet forays into Afghanistan were with an eye to taking control away from the regime in which they had put in place. In order to extend it's power base, it moved more troops and materiel into the country, using the well-honed Soviet strategy of overwhelming force ('shock & awe' is not anything new). However, this met with a great deal more resistance than was expected and of an nature that the Soviet armed forces were not used to dealing with, and thus the war dragged on, exacerbated by foreign backing of the insurgents. One can see that similar tactics by Western countries today in Afghanistan have met with pretty much the same problems. Even after the end of the Cold War, Soviet military thinking still dominated Russian military thinking - which is probably one reason why the same mistakes were made when the distastrous First Chechen War kicked off.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 7 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group