Some Jihadists are Ours, Like it or Not
This story, from the AP, doesn't seem to be getting much attention yet:
"RALEIGH, N.C. — A North Carolina man trained in Pakistan and Afghanistan has been charged along with six of his alleged recruits with conspiring to support terrorism and traveling overseas to participate in "violent jihad," according to an indictment unsealed Monday."
Boy, wait until the wingnuts get hold of this, right?
"The indictment said Boyd, a U.S. citizen, trained in Afghanistan and fought there between 1989 and 1992 against the Soviet Union before returning to the United States..."
That would be during the presidency of George Bush the first, when the jihadists were supported by the United States, and these lunatics were our guys. I wonder if the man who got his terrorist training in Afghanistan will be allowed to point out that we were financing the people who trained him?
Blowback is a bitch. Green Eagles's first principle of International Relations: Supporting the bad guys always ends up badly, even when the bad guys are fighting with other bad guys. Barack, think about that, when you try to figure out what to do about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
"RALEIGH, N.C. — A North Carolina man trained in Pakistan and Afghanistan has been charged along with six of his alleged recruits with conspiring to support terrorism and traveling overseas to participate in "violent jihad," according to an indictment unsealed Monday."
Boy, wait until the wingnuts get hold of this, right?
"The indictment said Boyd, a U.S. citizen, trained in Afghanistan and fought there between 1989 and 1992 against the Soviet Union before returning to the United States..."
That would be during the presidency of George Bush the first, when the jihadists were supported by the United States, and these lunatics were our guys. I wonder if the man who got his terrorist training in Afghanistan will be allowed to point out that we were financing the people who trained him?
Blowback is a bitch. Green Eagles's first principle of International Relations: Supporting the bad guys always ends up badly, even when the bad guys are fighting with other bad guys. Barack, think about that, when you try to figure out what to do about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Comments
The soviet-afghan war ended in 1989 so this is a red-flag for me.
"that we were financing the people who trained him?"
We did give support in the form of weapons and supplies but there is no evidence of the U.S. training any afghanistan fighters.
"Blowback is a bitch"
Uh, this is a misuse of the term "blowback". Usually the term is used to refer to a country meddling in another country's affairs just to have it come back to bite them later because someone was pissed they were there. Osama Bin Laden and his freedom fighters weren't anti-US until the Gulf War when we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, Osama's home country.
" Green Eagles's first principle of International Relations: Supporting the bad guys always ends up badly"
Who is to say that they were the bad guys? There was no way to tell at the time, as the Afghani citizens and other Muslim nations welcomed the US's support. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the US supported the free-citizens (semi-free) of Afghanistan. The people we were supporting weren't anti-US nor were they "bad" by any means. Unless you think all Muslim people are bad (I'm asking, yet again, if you are a bigot)
"Barack, think about that, when you try to figure out what to do about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia."
Pakistan isn't bad, and we will have to secure its nuclear arsenal if it collapses, but Saudi Arabia? What's wrong with Saudi Arabia?
I like how you can turn an ambiguous news story into something anti-republican. It is very clever, albeit naive, ignorant, and dishonest.
This is always the Republican excuse- whether it's Katrina, the real estate collapse, Iraq or anything else- Who knew?
Well, Derek, I know you are too young to remember this, but, at the time, plenty of people pointed out the danger of providing hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid to these people. Who were they? They were the same people who warned about invading Iraq. They are the same people that warned about cozying up to the Saudi dictators and the Pakistani "government." They were the people who were right all along. There were a lot of them, but not enough to stop Reagan and the two Bushes from doing their damage.
And, what's wrong with Saudi Arabia? What's wrong with an intolerant, repressive dictatorship sitting on the largest supply of oil in the world, while spreading a vicious, hate filled religious cult as fast and as far as they can?
Do you really find nothing wrong with that?
Actually, with Katrina, that is FEMA and the Louisiana governor's fault. The real estate collapse, as I have shown before, was predicted by Bush as early as 2002, and was scoffed at by the Democrats. With Iraq, there was some fog of war, but as you can see, things are going well and we should be out soon enough.
"Well, Derek, I know you are too young to remember this, but, at the time, plenty of people pointed out the danger of providing hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid to these people. "
But it was all speculation. If there was no way to know, then they had to of just been guessing. We provide military support to over 120 countries. Are you saying all of them are a bad idea? One of them is bound to end up biting you but that doesn't mean it outweighs the good that comes from helping the other 119 countries.
"while spreading a vicious, hate filled religious cult as fast and as far as they can? "
You always roll your eyes at republicans who talk about Islam as being evil, but then you turn around and do it, except worse. If there is one thing I hate in this world, it is hypocrisy. Saudi Arabia is a different culture. Some things are bound to be different from America. What is moral to us, might not be moral to them, and vice versa. Who are you to tell them that they are wrong? If their people are ok with it, you should be ok with it.
"Do you really find nothing wrong with that?"
I don't see a problem with a different culture using their natural resources to meet their political goals, no. It is the same thing we do, and the same thing every other country in the world does. International relations is filled with it. In our Westphalian system, you are going to end up disagreeing with the thing other nations do within their borders. It is called anarchy, and unless you are suggesting we isolate ourselves from Saudi Arabia (bad idea, unless you want $10 a gallon gas) or to invade Saudi Arabia (bad idea, " "), you are going to have to deal with the way things are.
Better to be friends with them, we can keep a closer eye on their activities while simultaneously benefitting from trade.
I've lived in the Middle East, and have worked most cordially with Arabs. I think I do understand them to some degree. Most of them are pretty much just like you and me, and are not really interested in living in a repressive dictatorship like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. What we hear from the Western press is such a gross exaggeration of what they really feel, that it is very hard for most people over here to see them rationally. To dismiss their position as something they accept because of their culture is to really denigrate their humanity.