Race For Afghan Oil?

tools

Report On Afghan Energy Resources Here

Meanwhile according to a Russian media report

Russian troops gathering near Kabul: Moscow Weekly
Tue Oct 09 2001 13:03:27 ET

MOSCOW, Oct 09, 2001 -- The Russian military has secretly positioned troops on the outskirts of Kabul for an assault on the Afghan capital together with the opposition Northern Alliance forces, the Russian weekly Moscow News said Tuesday.

The weekly said Russian troops are operating tanks that had been given to the Northern Alliance as part of Moscow's military aid and are awaiting orders for an offensive against Kabul.

The maneuver is aimed at beating American forces in entering Kabul not only for the sake of Russian honor, but also to secure a role for Russia in shaping the post-Taliban order in Afghanistan, the weekly said.

In addition to supplying vast amounts of weaponry to the forces fighting the Taliban government, Moscow has also sent "military experts, technicians and military advisers," the Moscow News report said.

A precedent to Russia taking this type of action was seen in June 1999 during the Yugoslavia war when Russian forces surprised the NATO-led international force and occupied the airport at the Kosovo capital.

Digi_Tilmitt

Well I hope the Russians do beat the American's to it. It might show the Americans that they are not the Gods they think they are.

Xterminator

I think that in the aftermath of the NewYork massacre, Americans are all too aware of their own humanity and vunerability.

In fact it is because of their sense of outrage, and righteous anger that they are going on this global war against terrorism.

Sounds very human to me.

No divine America here.

Still I guess i haven't got a trendy anti-american attitude.

X

bonkey

Originally posted by Xterminator
In fact it is because of their sense of outrage, and righteous anger that they are going on this global war against terrorism.

The US have invaded a foreign nation, allegedly to seek a suspect in a case. A suspect, against whom, they have steadfastly refused to procude evidence on a variety of pathetic excuses.

Lets put this in perspective. If the US asked the Irish government to hand over someone they suspected of being involved in terrorist activities in the US, the Irish government would ask for the necessary proof to show that the man was at least sufficiently under suspicion to merit his extradition. If the US declined to hand over that evidence, they would be politely told to shag off.

This is how international relationships work.

The US have decided that in the case of Afghanistan, for whatever reason, this is not the way it should work, and that because the Afghans will not comply, they will bomb the nation, and possibly send in troops afterwards to get what they want.

This is not a global war against terrorism. It is not righteous. It is international bullying.

This is a kneejerk reaction. You can be damn sure that if it was a Chinese suspect, they wouldnt be so quick about sending bombers and cruise missiles over Chinese soil.

I have not seen one piece of justification offered by anyone as to why the US have the right to invade a foreign nation because of their lack of co-operation.

Terrorism is not a nation. You cannot go to war against terrorism. The US's most formidable weapon - its military - is sodding useless against terrorism. In order to try and rectify that, a nation has been targetted in the name of terrorism.

Afghanistan is not "terrorism". The US is not at war with terrorism, its at war with Afghanistan. The rest is media spin.

Still I guess i haven't got a trendy anti-american attitude.

And here we go again....

Anyone who criticises the actions of the US in this arena is dubbed "anti-American". I am not anti-American - I just disagree with their actions in this case - in the same way I disagree with the UK's involvement as their cruise-buddy, Germany's stated willingness to get involved in the action as soon as they are wanted/needed, and every other nation who is jumping on the badnwagon to slap down an unpopular regime under the guise of fighting terrorism.

I suppose all the American's who oppose this action are anti-American as well?

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by Xterminator
I think that in the aftermath of the NewYork massacre, Americans are all too aware of their own humanity and vunerability.

You would think that wouldn't you.

tools

MOSCOW, Oct 9 (Reuters) - A leading Russian defence analyst said on Tuesday Russian troops were already on the ground in Afghanistan, but Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov reiterated that no Russian troops would fight in the "war on terrorism". Independent defence analyst Pavel Felgenhauer said Russian technicians, pilots and military advisers had been helping the
anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in Afghanistan for several years, but that there had been a large influx of them recently. Felgenhauer, speaking to Reuters, quoted informed sources as saying Russian soldiers had helped move tanks and other heavy equipment over the Pyandzh River from Tajikistan into fghanistan. He estimated there were between 1,000 and 2,000 Russian troops in the country.

Xterminator

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, he did so to take over the country, ie to usurp the power of the country.

The US has no such desire to usurp Afganistan.

They are not 'invading Afganistant' in the conventional sense. They are acting in accordance with an international mandate, to strike out at the infrastructure that allows terror attacks to be made with near impunity in the west.

In other words they are pre-emtively striking agains terrorists. And yes they have the right to defend themselves, and yes pre-emptive strikes are part of self defense.

This includes terror training camps, strongholds, and the Talaban extremeist govrnment targets, and troops and bases loyal to them. I hope to see similar targets in Sudan and other places dealt with too.

I welcome the acceptance by the US and allies that aid for the suffering citizens of this country that fled is also a need, and hope to see more food drops and aid too.

As for saying you have not seen the proof, that allows the US to blame Bin Laden and his protectors, then perhaps you have not seen the news recently. I believe an admission of guilt is still considered proof. And Bin Ladens words have been that.

The US provided enough proof to Pakestan, India, Egypt Turkey, Jordan and other muslin nations to back the US. Either that or they already knew themselves of the mans complicity. Have you ever considered it may compromise sensitve assets to release what they do know to the general public.

I do not have a problem with criticsim of actions or policys of America. In fact it leads to balanced debate, and a sence of balance must be mantained in this sort of enviornment.

What i did object to was critisicim of America for being America.

Quote" It might show the Americans that they are not the Gods they think they are."

Now i find that sort of unbacked up comment objectionable. don't you?

tools

This helps explain why Saddam invaded Kuwait
And do you REALLY think the allies will just leave all that lovely oil and gas alone once the baddies are beaten?

Draco

Originally posted by Xterminator
Quote" It might show the Americans that they are not the Gods they think they are."

Now i find that sort of unbacked up comment objectionable. don't you?

Yes, but Digi_Tilmitt has consistantly shown himself to be a complete and utter knobhead in pratically every post on the humanities boards, so I would pass any remarks on it.

Xterminator

Originally posted by tools
This helps explain why Saddam invaded Kuwait
And do you REALLY think the allies will just leave all that lovely oil and gas alone once the baddies are beaten?

1. I'm not sure the baddies can be beaten, but think its the right fight.

2. I am sure the allies have no wish to maintain control over Afganistan. (Not sure about the russians, though).

bonkey

Originally posted by Xterminator
The US has no such desire to usurp Afganistan.

Very debatable. They are targetting the Taleban military targets, and there is quite an amount of talk being reported about various factions lining up to make sure they have an influence on the replacement government.

Therefore, it is possible, and perhaps even probable that part of the aim of the Afghan invasion is the usurpment of the Afghani government (Taliban). The fact that it is not internationally recognised does not negate the fact that it controls approximately 89% of the nation.

They are not 'invading Afganistant' in the conventional sense.
They are acting in accordance with an international mandate, to strike out at the infrastructure that allows terror attacks to be made with near impunity in the west.

They have sent troops uninvited onto foreign soil. I believe that this satisfies anyone's definition of "invasion". The international mandate is all well and good, but I have yet to see any documented proof that the targets they struck at were indeed terrorist-related.

While I dont doubt that some of the targets they hit were terrorist related, other targets were Afghani military. Striking at these is an attack on the Afghan nation, despite the constant reassurances from the Allies that they are not attacking Afghanistan, but rather the rebels housed there.

In other words they are pre-emtively striking agains terrorists. And yes they have the right to defend themselves, and yes pre-emptive strikes are part of self defense.

This includes terror training camps, strongholds, and the Talaban extremeist govrnment targets, and troops and bases loyal to them. I hope to see similar targets in Sudan and other places dealt with too.

The US and their allies are constantly telling us that the Taliban are not the targets here. You say that they are legit targets. Taking your logic, you are rationalising that anyone who the US declares is between them and the terrorists can be shot at if they refuse to lie down and play according to the rules the US wants.

This is patently ridiculous. If the terrorists were being shielded by a nation who had a serious ability to defend itself, and/or a strong financial hold on the US, you can be damn sure they would not be spoutoing rhetoric about how it is their right to go in and blow the hell out of said nation.

As for saying you have not seen the proof, that allows the US to blame Bin Laden and his protectors, then perhaps you have not seen the news recently. I believe an admission of guilt is still considered proof. And Bin Ladens words have been that.

The US provided enough proof to Pakestan, India, Egypt Turkey, Jordan and other muslin nations to back the US. Either that or they already knew themselves of the mans complicity. Have you ever considered it may compromise sensitve assets to release what they do know to the general public.

First off, Bin Laden's words do not constitute proof of any sort. He has sworn to retaliate against the west should they attack Afghanistan. Prior to that, he insisted that he had nothing to do with the initial attacks. In no case that I am aware of has he admitted culpability to the attacks which occurred on September 11.

Even if Bin Laden came out tomorrow morning and admitted full responsibility, it still does not excuse the fact that the US acted without offering proof - they say "we know he's guilty" and thats it. Exactly how long do you think a prosecution like that would last in a US court, or a US military court (if you dont want to treat it as a civil case). I would say about as long as it took the Judge to ask whether or not the prosecution were serious.

The US have not supplied any proof to anyone - or at least have not admitted having done so to any public agency, so I have no idea how you think they have provided proof to Pakistan et al. What they did was come out and say "you are with us or against us". In other words....back the US actions, or become a target like the Afghans. Stunning righteousness there. The righteousness that a bully has, and no more.

What i did object to was critisicim of America for being America.

Quote" It might show the Americans that they are not the Gods they think they are."

Now i find that sort of unbacked up comment objectionable. don't you?

Fair enough - its not exactly a balanced comment. However, I can understand the sentiment that was expressed.

From where I sit, America have, in the name of "justice" or "self defense" as a result of the 9.11 attacks :

1) Refused a UN request that they get a sanction for each retaliatory action they choose to take, on the grounds that they will not become lapdogs to the UN.

2) Threatened / bullied the entire world into standing with them or against them when they take action, before ever saying what that action would be

3) Attacked a foreign nation for refusing to turn over a resident of that nation, without offering a shred of evidence as to why the man is guilty for his actions.


For someone to want to see them have some of that arrogance wiped off their collective faces is understandable.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Xterminator
2. I am sure the allies have no wish to maintain control over Afganistan. (Not sure about the russians, though).

I dont think anyone will try and stay in Afghanistan. More likely theyll look to set up a government favourable to themselves in place of the Taliban.

jc

gurramok

Originally posted by bonkey
Afghanistan is not "terrorism". The US is not at war with terrorism, its at war with Afghanistan. The rest is media spin.

Didn't the UN security council pass a resolution giving authorisation for the military action ??

BTW i don't believe they are at war with Afghanistan as a country, most definitely they are at war with the taliban under disguise. The opposition in Afghanistan support the military action !

Digi_Tilmitt

Originally posted by Draco
Yes, but Digi_Tilmitt has consistantly shown himself to be a complete and utter knobhead in pratically every post on the humanities boards, so I would pass any remarks on it.

Just because I post thing against America and Capitalism doesn't make me a knobhead. People have different opinions, ya know.

Xterminator

Originally posted by bonkey


Therefore, it is possible, and perhaps even probable that part of the aim of the Afghan invasion is the usurpment of the Afghani government (Taliban). The fact that it is not internationally recognised does not negate the fact that it controls approximately 89% of the nation.

It controls 89% of the nation through military might.

Does that mean if the Americans or Russians controlled 89% of the country through might, you would accept them as the legitimate rulers of the country even though the rest of the world did not.

The treatment of minoritys, other culture etc under the Taliban has been well documented, so I need not go too deply into it. The fact that they have press ganged eligble males into service has been recorded.

They act as terrorists. They masquerade as men of god.

Originally posted by bonkey
They have sent troops uninvited onto foreign soil. I believe that this satisfies anyone's definition of "invasion". The international mandate is all well and good, but I have yet to see any documented proof that the targets they struck at were indeed terrorist-related.

They dont need to provide the the media with documented proof of what they are doing. The media is a tool of war, not an independant observer. Where it has been used by both sides. and I dont believe for a minute the Taliban have been silenced. They have been putting out their remarkably quick no's of killed and injured civilians, and claiming planes shot down, and widespread 'collateral damage' to use the popular euphesim.

I do believe the reassurances of the west that they are not at war with the Afgani people. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Or for the next statement

Originally posted by bonkey
America... Threatened / bullied the entire world into standing with them or against them when they take action, before ever saying what that action would be


I'd say that is your opinion. Fair enough. But just because they didnt tell the media what there actions would b, what makes you think it was not discussed with allies, and concerned leaders, during the intense diplomatic action which took place first?

X

Draco

Originally posted by Digi_Tilmitt


Just because I post thing against America and Capitalism doesn't make me a knobhead. People have different opinions, ya know.

You can post away and have an opinion. However, they way you express these opinions have led me to believe you are a knobhead.

bonkey

Originally posted by Xterminator

It controls 89% of the nation through military might.

Does that mean if the Americans or Russians controlled 89% of the country through might, you would accept them as the legitimate rulers of the country even though the rest of the world did not.

Well, let see. China controls Tibet through military might. I believe that you will find that the rest of the world does accept this, although encourages them to change their stance.

Secondly, I actually find it deplorable that the UN will back certain "coups" around the world by acknowledging the new rulers, and decide not to acknowledge others - mostly based on the ideals for which people were fighting.

In other words, its OK to take over a country when there's an internationally unpopular regime in power and replace it with one which is seen to be better, but the recerse is not the same.

I find this imposing of will a little bit two-faced.

If the US do not acknowledge the Taliban, then they should never have asked them to hand over Bin Laden. By dealing with them at all in an international capacity, they have been forced to lend credence to the Taliban's position of power.

The treatment of minoritys, other culture etc under the Taliban has been well documented, so I need not go too deply into it. The fact that they have press ganged eligble males into service has been recorded.

They act as terrorists. They masquerade as men of god.

So what? This has nothing to do with their legitimacy as rulers.

They dont need to provide the the media with documented proof of what they are doing.

I never said they should.

However, when the Taliban say "show us evidence or we will do nothing", and the US say "we're not showing you anything", and other nations have gone on record as saying that they would like to see evidence first, you can draw one of two conclusions :

1) This is a massive international conspiracy to keep the evidence from the media or the fact that evidence has been supplied. Both the Taliban *and* the US are complicitous in this.

or

2) No evidence has been supplied.

Now, you tell me which is more probable - both sides turning up the opportunity to embarrass the other and/or bolster their own case by talking about the evidence which has been given, or the prbability that no evidence was procured.

I do believe the reassurances of the west that they are not at war with the Afgani people. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Or for the next statement

I have always said the US is at war with Afghanistan, not with its people. Whether we acknowledge them or not, the Taliban are the current ruling faction in that country. The US is at war with the Taliban, under a flimsy excuse of being at war with terrorism. Being at war with the ruling faction of a nation is effectively being at war with the nation.

The US have stated they are not at war with Afghanistan - that they are only seeking Al Qaeda and bin Laden. This is irreconcileable with the attacks which have been against Afghani military resources.

Originally posted by bonkey
America... Threatened / bullied the entire world into standing with them or against them when they take action, before ever saying what that action would be

I'd say that is your opinion. Fair enough. But just because they didnt tell the media what there actions would b, what makes you think it was not discussed with allies, and concerned leaders, during the intense diplomatic action which took place first?

OK, so you believe the Bush Administration had contacted every government in the world to outline its planned response before making a press-statement to say "you're with us or against us", which if I remember correctly was first issued on September 13 and was re-iterated several times thereafter.

So basically, you believe the US found evidence of who was guilty, formed a plan on how to react to this, and communicated both plan and evidence to the governments of the world in the 48 hours immediately following the disaster, on top of everything else which was going on?

Also, to make sure it wasnt bullying, you have to accept that it was sent to ALL governments, including the Taliban. So you believe the US sent the Taliban their plans on how to deal with the Taliban?

You really believe that this is more plausible than the US issuing an ultimatum while angry?

Regardless of whether or not this is true, I find it interesting that you will criticise me of "believing the media" in certain areas becuase I choose to case the US in a bad light from said media exposure.

How, may I ask, are you forming your opinion of America being the good guys, and above all the criticism I have levelled, if not also through the media?

Where, may I ask, is your evidence. You are criticising my analysis for lacking in evidence. Is your analysis any more firmly based?

jc

Xterminator

Too many differences to quote.

1. Recognising a new government.

In a democracy it is easy to decide who the govenment is. In other forms of toltalitarian regimes, espically disputed ones, such as the Afgani one, it is not clear cut. Of course there are differences of opinion, but by your reasoning (majority of land held), if the northern alliance held more ground, then they would be the legitimate government, and if the russians had install a puppet regime, they would be the government ..

It is wide open to interpretation. And you amy not agree with my interpretation, nor I yours, but i do recognise that we each make our own interpretation. What then is amiss with the US interpretation.


2. to your tirade on the bush admin and the diplomacy, there was no need for them to contact every Government in the world. Just those that involved themselves, aor the US wanted involved.

They were able to give different levels of info depending on who they were talking too. eg sensitive military info to UK, France, Germany, but not to India or Pakestan.

And they used theire allies to talk to people they could not talk to, ie Blair to Iran, Pakestan to Taliban etc.

3. Evidence Is Subjective. Some might say the biggest piece of evidence is the smoldering ruins of the WTC. The bombers identities have been traced fairly conclusvely. This merans that by investigating there flow of funds, movements, contacts etc, others can be implicated.
Then there is the evidence gleaned from previous terrorist attacks.
Also the US and it allies has informers. By revealing sensitve info, they may endanger the source.
So why should they release what they know and how much they know?

4. US says it is at War with the terrorists, there infrastructure, AND those who harbour them. EG Talaban .

Finally bullying? If saying we'll keep attacking america till there is peace in Palistine isn't an attempt to bully, what is?
Do you object cause America has a bigger stick? At least the americans have morals, and attempt to identfy guilty and innocent. The other 'bully' states and groups dont bother.
Are the attacks on american interests, embassies etc worldwide not part of a bullying campagian thats been going on for yesrs.

Some times you have to stand up to the bully, and that is the part i see America playing. It has been provoked, now it is standing up for itself.

When you beat up a bully are you then also a bully?

Again i think it depends on your point of view.

X

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey


Afghanistan is not "terrorism". The US is not at war with terrorism, its at war with Afghanistan. The rest is media spin.

Hmmmm! Well, as America is apparently allied with various anti-Taliban forces and American weapons have been focused on the Taliban (& bin Laden), that would suggest that your arrertion is just dead wrong.

And here we go again....

Anyone who criticises the actions of the US in this arena is dubbed "anti-American".

Well occasionally when someone posts something like "Well I hope the Russians do beat the American's to it. It might show the Americans that they are not the Gods they think they are", it does persuade one to believe that there is a certain bias about. Personally, I think that the idea that this is about Afganistan's oil is silly.

I am not anti-American - I just disagree with their actions in this case - in the same way I disagree with the UK's involvement as their cruise-buddy, Germany's stated willingness to get involved in the action as soon as they are wanted/needed, and every other nation who is jumping on the badnwagon to slap down an unpopular regime under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Okay, I respect your opinion. However, respectfullly -- I believe I'll side with the vast majority of Western nations and succumb to the idea that aggressively bitch-slapping the Taliban and any other organization that supports terrorism straight to hell is the better path.

I suppose all the American's who oppose this action are anti-American as well?
jc

Some, but certainly not all. Some have honorable reasons, some silly, some just vile.

Sharkey

Originally posted by Xterminator
....At least the americans have morals, and attempt to identfy guilty and innocent. The other 'bully' states and groups dont bother.

Respectfully, the Taliban does have morals. Here's proof.

Now this lady was publicly executed at a soccer stadium by the Taliban. Pre-game shows in Kabul can be a bitch. I guess the little lady resting with the rifle barrel pressed to her noggin was just asking to be executed -- showed her ankles in public or walked around with a man not her husband or a relative probably. Maybe she even talked back to her husband.

Okay, okay -- I know that you Europeans are desensitized to violence at soccer matches, but I understand that your governments disapprove of such violence and that you guys generally keep the beatings, maimings and killings limited to the stands and off the fields.

Group hug everyone.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sharkey

Hmmmm! Well, as America is apparently allied with various anti-Taliban forces and American weapons have been focused on the Taliban (& bin Laden), that would suggest that your arrertion is just dead wrong.

Huh? I assert that by attacking the ruling faction of a nation, they are attacking the nation.

You tell me that because they are attacking the ruling faction of a nation that my assertion is wrong?

I'm missing something here, cause this doesnt make sense to me.

Okay, I respect your opinion. However, respectfullly -- I believe I'll side with the vast majority of Western nations and succumb to the idea that aggressively bitch-slapping the Taliban and any other organization that supports terrorism straight to hell is the better path.

This would include bitch-slapping the US and its "internal" organistions such as the CIA for almost continuous supporting of various terrorist regimes over the last 30 years, yes?

Oh - hang on - they say that they never had anything to do with terrorists, and that even if they did, they dont any more. Which is pretty much the same line you get from the Talivan regarding Al Qaeda and bin Laden's involvement with that organisation.

Lets also arrest almost every party in the North of Ireland for having affiliations with terrorist groups.

And so on and so forth.

This is the hyprocicy I have a problem with. Of course everyone wants the perpetrators brought to justice - I just happen to disagree with the methods being used.

I also disagree with the precedent that it is now acceptable for the US to wage war on a group/nation for refusing to do as the US requested, without sufficient proof being offered in a public forum, nor (I personally believe) without proof being offered in a closed forum either.

jc

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey


Huh? I assert that by attacking the ruling faction of a nation, they are attacking the nation.

Look, I understand this point, but the Taliban isn't Afganistan and they don't even control the entire country. Would we be at war with Afganistan if we attacked the Northern alliance. Here's the reality of the situation -- only one or two countries recognize the Taliban as its legit government and at the Taliban rules by brute force, not by the consent of the populas.

This would include bitch-slapping the US and its "internal" organistions such as the CIA for almost continuous supporting of various terrorist regimes over the last 30 years, yes?

Could you provide an example or two where the CIA sponsored a terrorist organization. Something particular. Hard to discuss such generalities.

Oh - hang on - they say that they never had anything to do with terrorists, and that even if they did, they dont any more. Which is pretty much the same line you get from the Talivan regarding Al Qaeda and bin Laden's involvement with that organisation.

Well, I guess the US didn't destroy any of those Al Qaeda camps dotted about the Afgan countryside. Guess they were just a figment of our vivid imagination.

Lets also arrest almost every party in the North of Ireland for having affiliations with terrorist groups.

Respectfully -- affiliations and active support are two different things. However, IF ANY OF THE NI POLS ARE ACTIVELY SUPPORTING TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS, then have at it.

I also disagree with the precedent that it is now acceptable for the US to wage war on a group/nation for refusing to do as the US requested, without sufficient proof being offered in a public forum, nor (I personally believe) without proof being offered in a closed forum either.

jc

Well, we can disagree with what constitutes sufficient proof, and you can disagree with the wind, but that will stop little. We have traced the money paths and traced affiliations and tapped into their communications and the evidence keeps pointing to bin Laden -- same as with WTC I, the US embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole.


So how do you feel about that last little conflict in the Balkans?

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey

Well, let see. China controls Tibet through military might. I believe that you will find that the rest of the world does accept this, although encourages them to change their stance.
jc

We accept this as the reality of the situation. This is not to say that the world accepts Bejing as the legit government of Tibet

Hobbes

Could you provide an example or two where the CIA sponsored a terrorist organization. Something particular. Hard to discuss such generalities.

A few years ago there was a massive court case where the US goverment tried a load of people from the CIA for extremly illegal activities.

They ranged from assinations (where innocent US people were killed to get to the forigen target. Ref: La Pensa Bombing ), to drug running, various black ops, etc.

Iran-Contra arms deal was one of them.

You might remember it. It was the time Olly North went up and cried on TV and said "I did wrong" (major fricken understatement of the 20th century) and everyone wanted him to be president for telling the truth. Did you know he was banned from Costa Rica for drug trafficking.

Hobbes

http://www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/covert/irancontra.html

Here is even more information. It even includes the CIA manual on how to become a terrorist.

Sharkey

Originally posted by Hobbes

A few years ago there was a massive court case where the US goverment tried a load of people from the CIA for extremly illegal activities.

Oy! Is there a name or other identifier to the trial? What was the outcome? What are "extremely illegal" activities as opposed to jus illegal activities?

FYI -- Ollie North was never attached to the CIA and Ollie North was never convicted of a crime -- not because he didn't commit any, but because the Democrats in the Senate made a deal with North. North told all, but unfortunately for the Democrats, the Iran-Contra scandal never went much beyond North.

Did you know he was banned from Costa Rica for drug trafficking.

BTW -- the issue was the CIA sponsoring a terrorist organization.
You have digressed from the issue. The Contras were in open conflict with the Santinistas and the Costa Rica bit was tied in with the Contras. Drug money to finance the Contras and Noreiga. Nasty stuff, but not terrorist related.

However, your point about the CIA is not only well taken, but shared. The CIA has engaged in some sorry-assed activities re drugs in S. America. If not directly involved they enabled some creeps to run drugs to raise $$$ for arms.

The really hideous part about Iran-Contra was that a major traffic point was Mena, Arkansas, where the weapons production and training of Contras took place, and where shipment of guns and trained Contras originated. Word/rumor was that Clinton himself knew what was going on.

There will never be any real investigation of this as it involves too many people of power from both major American political parties. The real villian here isn't the CIA -- it is various a number of US politicians.

Sharkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
http://www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/covert/irancontra.html

Here is even more information. It even includes the CIA manual on how to become a terrorist.

Respectfully, there is nothing about a terrorism manual on your link. there's a manual that discusses psy-ops and guerilla warfare tactics, but this is not a training manual on terrorism and there's nothing I found about targeting civilians -- only fighting armed combatants.

your chacterization is erroneous. In fact, here's a quote from the accused manual : "In order to ensure popular support, essential for the good development of guerrilla warfare, the leaders should induce a positive interaction between the civilians..."

Notice that civilian populations aren't targeted for destruction, but "positive interaction"

By the way, the characterization of the manual at issue as being illegal is also erroneous. The only aspect of illegality (besides that drug thing) was providing direct U.S. $$$ to the Contras. Oliver North could raise money for the contras, but the particular Iran-based $$$ at issue money was considered property of the US, which is where North crossed the line.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sharkey

BTW -- the issue was the CIA sponsoring a terrorist organization.[/B]

The CIA were caught funding a few years back NORAID (IRA front) and supplying them with weapons to pass onto the IRA. In return the IRA were supposed to extend thier bombing campagin to East Berlin.

America even refused to put NORAID on the terrorist list at the request of the Irish and English goverments.

That may of changed since. I'd have to go look.

Sharkey

Originally posted by Hobbes


The CIA were caught funding a few years back NORAID (IRA front) and supplying them with weapons to pass onto the IRA. In return the IRA were supposed to extend thier bombing campagin to East Berlin.

America even refused to put NORAID on the terrorist list at the request of the Irish and English goverments.

That may of changed since. I'd have to go look.

Okay, thanks for returning to the issue, i.e., CIA involvement with terrorism.

I've heard NOTHING about this and I've done a search on two different search engines to no avail. Could you provide a bit of detail?

Hobbes

http://members.tripod.co.uk/NoraidWatch/enter5.html

That will give you baseline information to start searching.

This is from Irish times

HOME NEWS
Saturday, June 29, 1996


Stasi's IRA files
suggest CIA link


From Denis Staunton, in Berlin

East Germany's intelligence service believed that Noraid
arms shipments to the IRA were controlled by the US Central
Intelligence Agency, according to documents seen by The Irish
Times in Berlin.

A 21-page analysis of the IRA by the counter-terrorism branch
of the Stasi dated October 20th, 1986, suggests the East
Germans viewed the IRA bombing campaign against British
army targets in West Germany as a potential threat to their own
security.

Using information obtained from agents within West German
terrorist organisations as well as West German double agents,
the Stasi concluded the IRA links with European terrorists
were insignificant. But they were convinced that arms were
supplied from the US with the CIA's knowledge.
"The IRA is supported especially by a so-called Northern Aid
- Noraid - organisation in the USA. According to available
knowledge, the arms deals and shipment from the USA to
Northern Ireland are controlled and supervised by the CIA,"
the report says.

No further information is offered to support the charge, which
is repeated in almost every subsequent Stasi report on the IRA,
the last of which was written in September 1989, less than two
months before the Berlin Wall crumbled. But the documents
refer to a court case in 1983 when the FBI arrested CIA
agents during an investigation of a Noraid weapons shipment.
The Stasi regarded the IRA's US link as more important than
any contacts with German terrorists. The report suggests the
IRA was reluctant to pool its resources with other groups and
it records that no Irish representative was present at a meeting
of European terrorist groups in Frankfurt in January 1986.

Although the Stasi expected an escalation of IRA attacks on
British military personnel in West Germany, they predicted
there would be no increase in co-operation with German
terrorists.

The bombing campaign in West Germany appears to have
been the chief cause of the Stasi's sudden interest in the IRA.
When a senior British intelligence officer visited Berlin a month
after the Wall fell, the Stasi's counter-intelligence chief
told him there had never been any East German contacts with the IRA.

These documents appear to confirm that statement, and the
1986 report concludes that the IRA "has thus far developed no
hostile plans or intentions against the GDR and has not misused
our territory [and] has had no contact with people from the
GDR."

The report recommends the Stasi maintain a close watch on the
IRA, especially insofar as their plans presented "moments of
danger" to East Germany.

The Stasi produced numerous reports on the IRA over the next
three years, some of which contain detailed information about
the organisation's activities and command structure.

The IRA file includes a detailed history of the organisation from
1921 onwards and a list of IRA attacks since 1980. Support
groups such as the National H-Blocks committee and the
Relatives Action Committee are described and their leading
figures named.

One appendix provides potted biographies of nine "supergrass"
informers and another lists escaped IRA prisoners.

Much of the information is drawn from western newspapers,
but intelligence sources provided much of the detail. Thus, a
Stasi agent within the West German embassy in the
Netherlands passed on a list of IRA weapons found by the
Dutch authorities, complete with serial numbers.

Ireland account in 1985, the documents identify an Austrian
goldsmith as the IRA's contact for a weapons deal for which
the money was to be used. Information on his movements
came from a Stasi mole in the Austrian Interior Ministry.

The INLA is described as having close links with the IRA, an
observation that may be based on co-operation between the
two groups during the 1981 hunger-strikes. But the Stasi was
clearly not informed about links between Irish paramilitaries
and the Libyan government.

In 1984 the western media reported on what appeared to be
information from opposing intelligence services, that the
INLA's source of money and weapons was in the Middle East.
This was a reference to Libya's attitude to terrorism and
suggested that fighters from the IRA and INLA, as well as
members of Protestant paramilitaries, were trained in camps
there.

The Stasi regarded the Ulster Defence Association as the most
dangerous paramilitary organisation on the loyalist side, along
with "Ulster Ecclesia Militans" which is described as "the
paramilitary defence force of the Free Presbyterian Church".

The tone of the documents is decidedly cool, betraying little
sympathy for the IRA or its campaign "for Christian Socialism
without Socialists or Communists", as one Stasi report puts it.
Most of the reports are sober and rigorous.

The East Germans regarded the IRA as a formidable
organisation and believed the British authorities were losing
control of the situation in Northern Ireland.

By September 25th, 1989, the East German authorities were
still worried about the IRA campaign in West Germany and
demanded more information from the Stasi. For the first time,
agents were to be planted among Irish immigrants in West
Germany to report on potential IRA recruits. The agents were
never put in place because, six weeks later, the Berlin Wall fell

Again that document can be used as a staging point to search for more information on the subject.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/northern_ireland/newsid_980000/980895.stm

I did a search in the online CIA archives but oddly enough NORAID doesn't appear. Probably not released yet.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/aia/wilson95.htm

Makes a reference to another court case which I'm bored looking for. Again it makes a reference to the CIA releasing a statement on the accusations but there is no reference to it in the CIA archives.

More then enough to keep searching.

adnans

Originally posted by Sharkey
Respectfully, the Taliban does have morals. Here's proof.
[edit]<picture of a woman about to be executed on a football pitch>[/edit]
Now this lady was publicly executed at a soccer stadium by the Taliban...

didnt mr. bush order the execution of texas woman, the first one in texas since 1860's. who was tried for the murder by pickaxe of a man and a woman in 1984, and before the execution she appealed to the US supreme court on the grounds that she was a born again christian with no avail. after the execution in an interview mr. bush followed to mock her by whimpering his lips "Please," desperately mocking her "don't kill me."

afghanistan is not a developed country as you may think when compared where you live (afghanistan has only 18 miles of railroad, or should i say zero after the bombings). america was once, just as is taliban, driven by religious fanaticism and racism. early americans tortured each other over religion and even hung each other for witchcraft. i strongly oppose killing of any kind but you need to look back and think for a minute before coming to a resolution.

back to the topic:

race for afghan oil? could be, but its not quite a reason to invade afghanistan. if the topic was race for kazakhstan's oil? then i would agree.

few years ago, the former republic of the soviet union discovered an untapped source of oil east of the caspian sea. about 50 billion oil barrels to be precise. this is the biggest reserve in the world (saudi arabia, world's largest oil producer is believed to have about 30 billion barrels remaining). the only problem being is how to pipe the oil to sea, a problem which has been though over for the past decade since khazakhstan's independence in 1991. there were several plans to do this, but building a pipeline is rather expensive. the longer it is, the more expensive it is and it is more subjected to sabotage. plans included were, through iran (this is the shortest route, but khazakstan is closely aligned with US to let tehran have a share of the oil), through russia (join the existing pipe to the black sea, neighbouring turkmenistan learned their oil lesson cause russia tends to divert oil for their own use without paying for it) and through china (too expensive).

unocal proposed to extend turkmenistan's existing pipe west to the khazak oil field and southeast to the pakistani port in karachi to the arabian sea. that proposal would have the pipe running through afghanistan.

in 1994 US and pakistan installed a regime(taliban) that would stabilise afghanistan and end its civil war assuring safety for unocal's project. US state dept. and the pakistani ISI intelligence even funded the Taliban regime with arms and money to fight the tajik northern alliance. result, US gets its oil for cheap and pakistan profits from its port in karachi. as with saddamm husein and iraq, the taliban got out of control and went on to produce the 50% of world's opium and collaborate with known terrorists, osama bin laden. the project seemed to go back on track when clinton sent a cruise missile to afghanistan - taliban eradicated entire opium poppy in less then a year. it wasnt untill a group of egyptians decided to blow up the WTC and the pentagon and kill 6000 civilians that the relationship between US and taliban stopped.

finally, mr. bush had an excuse to eradicate taliban and replace it with another puppet-regime. althought this time, the whole world is watching. this war is another lie, and as mr. bush would say, make no mistake: this is about oil.

further reading: Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia


adnans

Hobbes

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html

Natural resources: natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones

Also the largest Opium producer in the world.

Xterminator

From Adnans <p> "didnt mr. bush order the execution of texas woman, the first one in texas since 1860's. who was tried for the murder by pickaxe of a man "

Are you seriously comparing the exection of a convicted killer with the persecution of women in general by the taliban regeime, where it is legal to kill a woman foll allowing a part of her body be exposed?

Where women are not allowed to have a job, or even be educated but are entirly dependant on men.

Where they have no rights, are considered not to have a soul, but are instead simply meat vessels to bear children.

There was a very interesting documentary on during the week on ITV , about how life fior women had changed since the taliban took over.

The story on how they went about publicy beating women with sticks till they fell in line with the stricter intrepretation of Islams laws such as the dress code, was very enlightening.

X

adnans

Originally posted by Xterminator
Are you seriously comparing the exection of a convicted killer with the persecution of women in general by the taliban regeime, where it is legal to kill a woman foll allowing a part of her body be exposed?

no. both countries have their own share of violence and discrimination was my point. i should have made that more clear. sorry for any misinterpretation.

adnans

Hobbes

Originally posted by Xterminator
Are you seriously comparing the exection of a convicted killer with the persecution of women in general by the taliban regeime, where it is legal to kill a woman foll allowing a part of her body be exposed?

Well if your looking to compare you could say both happend because of the laws in that country.

Death penalty has put innocent people to death who have been convicted of a crime.

Sharkey

Originally posted by Hobbes

But they were convinced that arms were
supplied from the US with the CIA's knowledge.
"The IRA is supported especially by a so-called Northern Aid
- Noraid - organisation in the USA. According to available
knowledge, the arms deals and shipment from the USA to
Northern Ireland are controlled and supervised by the CIA,"
the report says.

Thanks -- however, I might respectfully point out that the Stasi is hardly an unbiased source and other than conclusions, the article points to no evidence to support those conclusions.

I am not saying you are wrong, just that your proffer of proof contains but conclusory remarks by suspect sources without supporting evidence.

Your second reference does not even contain references to the CIA.

Your third reference has reference to the CIA, but tends to dispel the notion that the CIA had any involvement with the IRA. Exapmle : "They claimed the defendants thought (not knew) Michael Hanratty was a CIA agent and therefore that their gunrunning scheme had US government approval. Assistant US Attorney Carol Amon produced CIA affidavits stating that Hanratty was not one of their operatives.

Again -- zero evidence supporting the assertion that the CIA ever supported the IRA and some evidence refuting the assertion.

Sharkey

Originally posted by adnans


no. both countries have their own share of violence and discrimination was my point. i should have made that more clear. sorry for any misinterpretation.

adnans

Respectfully, every country has its share of bigots and jerks.

The real issue is whether the violence and discrimination is sponsored by the ruling powers and whether the government encourages or discourages such actions.

Sharkey

By the way, Hobbes -- I don't have any strong feeling about NORAID one way or the other -- mostly due to lack of knowledge of the group.

However, a quick search leads me to believe that our Senator Ted Kennedy is much more closely tied to NORAID than any other government entity of ours.

Perhaps you have a true complaint, but not with the CIA. Email Senator Kennedy at senator@kennedy.senate.gov re NORAID

By the way, here is a good website to show the various busts by our law enforcement and others on the IRA

http://members.tripod.co.uk/NoraidWatch/arms.html

Hobbes

Thanks -- however, I might respectfully point out that the Stasi is hardly an unbiased source

No source is unbiased and not all news companies tell the truth.

It does make a reference to a case where the FBI caught the CIA running guns. Use that to find the information.

Your second reference does not even contain references to the CIA.

No it talks about NORAID and how the US hadn't put them on the terrorist list which Ireland and England wanted.

To my knowledge it hasn't been done. See NORAID's site.
http://www.noraid.com

Your third reference has reference to the CIA, but tends to dispel the notion

For that case yes, however they quote another case (Flannery) where the suspects were able to get off because of US government intervention.

Again use them to search for the information. Despite what you may think the internet does not know everything, however it can point you to more information.

That search for that stuff took about an hour before I got bored. I was hoping you would actually search for more stuff rather then just trying to debunk what I posted.

Hobbes

believe that our Senator Ted Kennedy is much more closely tied to NORAID

As was Reagen and a few other Irish/Americans. If the Irish and English goverment couldn't get them put on a terrorist list do you think they would listen to a foriegner?

Seeing as it's a "war on terrorism" how dealing with all terrorism and not just ones on your own soil.

btw, NORAID is not the only terrorist organisation in NI. There are also loyalist ones too.

Sharkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
Thanks -- however, I might respectfully point out that the Stasi is hardly an unbiased source

No source is unbiased and not all news companies tell the truth.

You're preaching to the choir on the issue of news agencies, however, (1) some sources of information ARE more biased than others; (2) The Stasi was not a news service, but a repressive intelligence service of the former East Germany; and (3) There's still zero supporting evidence.

It does make a reference to a case where the FBI caught the CIA running guns. Use that to find the information.

Respectfully, the reference you speak of is meaningless and without context. I could not find any 1883 case on this issue and the Internet is flush with anti-CIA conspiracy sites.

Your second reference does not even contain references to the CIA.

No it talks about NORAID and how the US hadn't put them on the terrorist list which Ireland and England wanted.

I cannot dispute the issue there, but how do you take the inaction of branding NORAID as a terrorist org to prove that the CIA is actively supporting NORAID?

For that case yes, however they quote another case (Flannery) where the suspects were able to get off because of US government intervention.

There is a large difference in the incompetence of a criminal prosecutor and law enforcement to fail to convict a few thugs in a predominently Irish-American Jurisdiction, and proving there WAS government involvement. Again it was the FLANNERY trial were the CIA produced evidence as to their lack of involvement.

Look, I have not asked for any high level of evidence to support your assertion. It is incumbant on you to support your assertions with evidence and logic. So far there is no evidence but the gratitutious conclusions of the Stasi and unsupported remarks made by criminal defendants

Sharkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
believe that our Senator Ted Kennedy is much more closely tied to NORAID

As was Reagen and a few other Irish/Americans. If the Irish and English goverment couldn't get them put on a terrorist list do you think they would listen to a foriegner?

Seeing as it's a "war on terrorism" how dealing with all terrorism and not just ones on your own soil.

btw, NORAID is not the only terrorist organisation in NI. There are also loyalist ones too.

Respectfully, the original issue was proving CIA support of terrorist organizations.

re Ronald Reagan, I could find nothing about him supporting NORAID

However, I know Bill Clinton invited Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, the former IRA men who now lead Sinn Fein, to the White House.

Of course Clinton invited various drug dealers and anyone else who contributed to his campaign coffers to the Whitehouse.

I brought up Ted Kennedy because (1) he has actively supported NORAID and (2) his family has strong ties to Ireland. Reagan and Clinton may have Irish blood, but the Kennedys live and breathe Irish politics.

Hobbes

The Stasi was not a news service

True, however the Stasi weren't exactly advertising the fact. The information came from documents that came to light when the Wall fell.

Respectfully, the reference you speak of is meaningless and without context

No they make a mention to an actual US case in the US that the Stasi were so preoccupied about. I'm sure if it was a lie then the Irish times may of mentioned it, in in the same story.

CIA is actively supporting NORAID?

I didn't say that, I said they were caught supplying them weapons.

The US actively supports NORAID (all be it public contributions). I am not branding NORAID as a terrorist group. The Irish and English Goverment have claimed they are a front for Republican terrorists to help escape justice or supply with funds. Heck just go to thier website and read what they say about the IRA. They make them out to be angels.

Actually one of the links I gave you (I forget which) lists where the US forced NORAID to confirm they were working for the Provo's or the IRA. Even after NORAID finally admitted it they still weren't put on the terrorists list.

Again it was the FLANNERY trial were the CIA produced evidence as to their lack of involvement.

erm, no it wasn't. It was the Meehans case.

Sharkey

Originally posted by Hobbes


CIA is actively supporting NORAID?

I didn't say that, I said they were caught supplying them weapons.

Actually, there's still zero evidence provided that the CIA supplied any weapons to the IRA -- your own articles supports my position more than yours.

The US actively supports NORAID (all be it public contributions). I am not branding NORAID as a terrorist group. The Irish and English Goverment have claimed they are a front for Republican terrorists to help escape justice or supply with funds. Heck just go to thier website and read what they say about the IRA. They make them out to be angels.

Personally, I despise the IRA. To the extent NORAID supports the IRA I will side with you. To the extent my government supports the IRA I am appalled. To the extent my countrymen support the IRA I am appalled.

However, given your post, I don't think the CIA is supporting the IRA. We can disagree on the weight of the evidence provided, certainly, but so far the evidence isn't compelling really compelling.

Again it was the FLANNERY trial were the CIA produced evidence as to their lack of involvement.

erm, no it wasn't. It was the Meehans case.

Yep. My mistake. Meehan tried to copy Flannery's defense tactic.

However, I still dont see where Flannery produced one iota of evidence of CIA involvement -- just his "thought" that a given person was a US agent.

Look, you really have made a good case against NORAID, but not against the CIA. Further, it should be obvious that the US gov't has tried to bust these IRA skunks whenever possible. We may not have branded NORAID a terrorist organization, but apparently we have gone to significant lengths to quash the IRA's activities here

Sharkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
The Stasi was not a news service

True, however the Stasi weren't exactly advertising the fact. The information came from documents that came to light when the Wall fell.

Well, remember -- you were the one who brought up news services in light of the Stasi. I was a bit confused by your digression.

No they make a mention to an actual US case in the US that the Stasi were so preoccupied about. I'm sure if it was a lie then the Irish times may of mentioned it, in in the same story.

Now I'm more confused. Which case? Did they base there conclusions on public information or covertly discovered data?

I didn't say that, I said they were caught supplying them weapons.

That sounds like "support" within the context of the discussion and there's still no evidence that a CIA operative was involved, merely someone's "thought" that a person was a CIA operative.