I made extensive posts on this, including a timeline created by myself.

IRT to the events that lead to 9/11 /creation of Al Qaeda/creation and support of the Taliban

Russia Invades Afghanistan to keep it communist (1980)--->US/Pakistan supports/trains the rebel Mujaheddin in Afghanistan including Bin Laden---> Communist Afghanistan is not defeated but basically destroyed in a long war in what is referred to as Russia's Vietnam----> Afghanistan starts to fall apart in the late 80s early 90s--->by 1992 Afghanistan completely falls apart and its communist president is brutally tortured/executed by the same rebels the US/Pakistan supported---->a tribal pact is formed and from 92-96 political power is shared in Afghanistan, eventually major disagreements occur and a civil war ensues----> 1996 The Taliban come to power, largely made of those same Mujaheddin from the 1980s ----->2001-----> Taliban are accused of harboring Osama Bin Laden, the same man who was supported by the ISI/CIA in the 1980s.

In the early 90s the CIA/ISI continued to fund/arm tribal groups in Afghanistan which included high ranking members of the Taliban.


---> 2001 9/11 occurs and with it George W bush declares to all nations of the world "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists"

Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary in the UK from 1997–2001, believed the CIA had provided arms to the Arab Mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden, writing, "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."

In conversation with former British Defence Secretary Michael Portillo, two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto said Osama bin Laden was initially pro-American.Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, has also stated that bin Laden once expressed appreciation for the United States' help in Afghanistan. On CNN's Larry King program he said:

Bandar bin Sultan: This is ironic. In the mid-'80s, if you remember, we and the United - Saudi Arabia and the United States were supporting the Mujahideen to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets. He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn't it ironic?

Larry King: How ironic. In other words, he came to thank you for helping bring America to help him.

Bandar bin Sultan: Right.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...01/lkl.00.html


[/I]

The foundation and creation of Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan in the 1980s, CIA/ISI funded training continuing throughout the early 90s as well

I've heard that the USA both completely abandoned Afghanistan leaving a power vacuum that the Taliban filled and that the USA funded the Taliban.

I learn towards the former. True the USA dud train some of the Mujahideen. The funding came from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. After the war was winding down the countries that let their people fight in Afghanistan stripped the fighters of their citizenship or blocked their return for fear of radicalization. Bin Laden started collecting their fighters to be recruited into his organization. Pakistan saw the benefits of having control of their "backyard", Afghanistan, and funded and trained the Taliban.

The truth is Al Qaeda is the culmination of an anti - colonial political ideology with the wrappings of theology. Al Qaeda isn't the only organization of this type, of course, neither is it the only time that these kind of "purification" groups have shown up in Islamic history.

thekid345-you seem to have a very basic understanding oh what happened in Afghanistan/Pakistan in the 80s. you do not have any understanding of how the group that became Al Qaeda fits into that history. also, i assume when you saw that quote from the British politician you had an "Aha!" moment, but you completely misunderstand what he was saying; it is not to be taken literally: "we created and funded Bin Laden."

Big Laden was not a fighter in the Afghan jihad. The US did not support Al Qaeda in the 80s, because in the 80s Al Qaeda did not exist.

Bid Laden was basically the personal assistant/fund raiser for one of the most respected men in Peshawar who ran a "charity" that set up medical clinics and provided logistical support for Arabs who were flying into the border to go fight in Afghanistan. He was not dodging Russian tank shells, he was flying to back and forth to the Gulf to raise money from his family's friends and their friends.

I'm not going to go through you post and correct everything you have wrong; if you are genuinely interested in the subject i can suggest some good books that will give you an understanding of what actually happened.

But one thing i can't resist: lol it wasn't "Russian sends in land army => America sets up a rebel army of Muj." the US was very late to the fight, and the first "support" we sent was boxes of WWI rifles and X-Large Band-Aids (and that's not a comic exaggeration). The US didn't create and arm a rebel army to fight; they were fighting long before we sent the first Enfield rifle and would have continued to fight if the US had done nothing. What the US did do was see the Afghans fighting our enemy and decide to help them actually win.

you have it backwards here. the US did close to 0 training on the ground in Pakistan. part of the agreement with the Pakistani military was they would take the money and distribute it to different rebel groups as they saw fit. the only training the US provided was when we sent advanced anti-aircraft weaponry (Stinger missiles) and if i remember correctly US trainers trained Pakistani trainers, who then trained the people who would fire them in Afghanistan.

A substantial part of the funding did come from the US; it's a fact. The agreement with Saudi Arabia was every dollar the US Congress gave to the Afghan rebels, Saudi Arabia would match it, and it was many $billions$.

It's not an easy group to assess the history of, they don't keep good records and the border region where they originally made an impact is one of the most dangerous places in the world and has been so for many decades. But it is generally accepted that the Taliban arose from hardliner Pakistani religious madrasas, and that they gained popularity by fighting corrupt walords (many of whom where former Mujahedin commanders) in Afghanistan who had taken power after the Soviet withdrawal.

I think it is also important to note that the US (or the people involved in this) misjudged the situation they engaged themselves in. Afghanistan is a mire and has been a mire for the entirety of its existence. Probably in large part because it has straight borders (meaning it was colonially divided) and large prolems with internal ethnic struggles.

However you do raise a good point which I don't think people appreciate. Al Qaida didn't stem from local fighting militias, if it was it would have been a far easier enemy to fight. Its origins are from internationally minded recruitment organizations, fundraisers and (if you ask me) also quite likely "asset handlers" from or at least trained by ISI.

The British did though. We supplied weapons to the Mujaheddin and then sent the SAS to train them how to use them to kill Russians (including the use of those American Stingers). Then those same weapons and training were turned on us in the early part of the current 'war' in Afghanistan.

lol.

Are you serious with this? How is a non-believer 'propelled' toward violence at all?

Also, are you not admitting here that Muslims are propelled toward violence or was that just a semantic slip up on your part?

In fact you are the manipulator/provider of misinformation itt, you admit this. Because you can not debunk the facts I have laid out to you, you do not want to admit that w/o the CIA/ISI funding/training/arms support 9/11 would not have occurred. Al Quaeda would have never prospered..

I admit FDR made some mistakes wrt to the japanese intern camps in the US and the bomb dropped by Truman, along with slavery and civil rights. It is our duty to recognize these factual mistakes in moving forward to prevent further destruction of people. This includes the USA mistake of indirectly/directly being responsible for what led to the creation of Al Qaeda/Taliban and 9/11

Thekid going into conspiracy territory now...

Yea I flipped it.

the difference between you and me does not have to do with one being able to admit mistakes and the other not.

i know what i'm talking about; you do not.

your understanding of these things clearly comes from skimming a Wikipedia article and watching YouTube videos. when i offered to give you places where you could actually learn something you said, "No thanks."

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan before the US even thought about providing any assistance. The Afghans would have fought to the last man without the US, then waited for their sons to grow up and kept on fighting.

the event that made Bin Laden think about declaring war on the US was in 1990, Operation Desert Shield.

now, getting this thread back on topic, here's another question for you TheKid (and the fact that you have no knowledge or understanding of the topic will not stop you from pulling it up on Wikipedia)

do you consider Wahhabi Islam specifically to be peaceful school of Islamic thought?

Before we do move on I must ask,

Do you believe 9/11 and the formation of the Taliban would have occurred had the CIA/ISI/Saudi Arabia not funded/trained the mujahedin in the 1980s? Because it is said that the majority of the taliban fighters were in fact Pakistan nationals. Something like 60-70%.

In addition, I would ask you to debunk my timeline which I believe is accurate.

IRT to the events that lead to 9/11


Russia Invades Afghanistan to keep it communist (1980)--->US/Pakistan supports/trains the rebel Mujaheddin in Afghanistan including Bin Laden---> Communist Afghanistan is not defeated but basically destroyed in a long war in what is referred to as Russia's Vietnam----> Afghanistan starts to fall apart in the late 80s early 90s--->by 1992 Afghanistan completely falls apart and its communist president is brutally tortured/executed by the same rebels the US/Pakistan supported---->a tribal pact is formed and from 92-96 political power is shared in Afghanistan, eventually major disagreements occur and a civil war ensues----> 1996 The Taliban come to power, largely made of those same Mujaheddin from the 1980s ----->2001-----> Taliban are accused of harboring Osama Bin Laden, the same man who was supported by the ISI/CIA in the 1980s.

---> 2001 9/11 occurs and with it George W bush declares to all nations of the world "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists"

BTW I have studied this subject from both sides, including the viewpoints of Jeremy Scahill/Chistopher Hitchens to that of Dick Cheney/ GW Bush

You must not have studied it very well if you believe you can group Hitchens and Scahill together.

now you are putting words in my mouth, not that I care. I like the sascha cohen movies as well but I would like a serious answer here. Maybe I should have stated all sides instead of both but still give me a break

Besides both Scahill and hitchens are/were fed up with certain US gov policies, so there you go. See dirty wars/ trail of henry Kissinger

EDIT: I will concede I confused Hitchens views of 9/11 with those of his views on other U.S polices, nonetheless Hitchens has spoken out against US policies in Iraq/Afganistan but you did make a good point here.

This thread has reminded me why I liked my decision never to post in RGT. Stuck with it for years. Oh well.

Y'all seem to have this well in hand, though no one's changing anyone's mind about anything. But that's religion for ya. But I shall leave you with this:

"Tenets"

Not tenants, tenets. Sheesh.

It actually does happen here sometimes.

Reading this thread in its completeness tilts me ridiculous badly. Kid, you are (often deliberately) wrong on all topics (and you know it), bigoted in most responses and extremely stubborn. Why even bother with a thread here while you DON'T EVEN TRY to understand what other people are saying?
We don't care we are not being labeled by you, etc. We care about truth and you obviously do not share that view. We want a conversation while you do not. Read the quran, there is hatred in nearly all chapters. (Yes I own one).
Islam is not a religion of peace, and you are a terrible bigoted 'historian' merely posting your view over and over. Completely anti-scientific. Oh and mohammed was a pedophile, please rationalize that. And oh, the penalty for apostasy (albeit indirectly) indeed is death, and you know that. Tomorrow I'll post some quotes from that poisenous book.

Sent from my JY-G3 using 2+2 Forums

Hey Wilco are you upset?

also who is we? And just a heads up, no matter what you post you will not receive an aggressive response from me. Good luck with whatever you are trying to accomplish itt

Wilco don't waste your time. Look at the how to prevent islamophobia thread, apostasy killings, pedophilia, and thievery have already been vigorously defended.

I will accept that you probably know what you're talking about, and smile s bit at the thought that not everyone's mind is closed.

Kid the problem is that you aren't receiving the posters responses and your style of discourse is basically at odds with what is considered standard practice over here.

For a brief revision:

You stated that Islam is a religion of peace and welcomed people to give you their opinion on the matter.

People gave you their opinion on the matter, lots of it being along the lines of "No i do not think that it is a religion of peace because X"

Just to alert you, most all of us are athiest and consider all religions to be dogmatic and responsible for a lot of destruction and chaos. I trust that i am not the only one who was offended by your claim that athiests are more prone to violence than believers, that is a strong (and wildly incorrect) assertion to make and something you haven't provided a shred of evidence to back up (or a retraction). I don't know what forums you normally read, but "STALIN THO" isn't gonna fly over here. Ironically, you accuse others of being rude/insincere/adhering to a flawed method of debate.

The reality is that you can't debunk an argument which observes that islamic states like Saudi Arabia are run in a manner in which liberties are grossly violated by responding with stuff like casualties of german tyranny / the history of various countries. I agree that history plays an important role in debate, but it isn't a tool you can use to defend yourself from the assertion that islam as being practiced in SA is oppressive today. You also can't be like "incarceration rate for the US is high tho" because it really is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Can you see why this is? Either you argue that those states aren't actually islamic, or you show your homework that liberties aren't being violated/aren't worthy of being protected.

As a case study, lets look at our back and forth with you on the burqa. We expressed that we view the burqa as a sign of oppression of women because it is mandatory for them to wear them in some regions. The reason this is viewed as oppressive is because there is no choice in the matter and while you bring up the fact that many women may proudly wear the burqa, that does not excuse the reality that there are women who don't want to be wearing it, who are doing it simply because they have to. Someone chimed in with how important a place the face has in the human psyche (and in human interaction) and i tend to agree with this (but even if i didn't hold this view, i would still view being forced to conceal it as being oppressive)

That you weren't able to comprehend this point being made is excusable, but it is inexcusable for you to reflexively accuse people of presenting this viewpoint as being offensive to women who do wear the burqa voluntarily (and therefore writing off the entire position as one that is not worth consideration). That is not in the spirit of good debate and it is an example of the type of disconnect that occurs with the other topics that have been discussed with you.

where were you this entire thread? That's quite the interesting viewpoint my friend

before I respond I would ask for your honest thoughts on how you think a Muslim would view this comment by wilco, and your thoughts on how you view these statements by wilcogold?

I imagine that a muslim person would view it as being offensive and inaccurate, much like your assertion that athiests are prone to violence (and until you present a case for this other than "STALIN THO", im going to have to assume that you are sticking with that). What is your point anyway?

Here is my honest view, my mind is so open that in fact, I am not ignorant enough to dismiss Saudi Arabia right away, I think the people of S.A and their way of life is a pillar of the civilized world.If I am to be upset about an issue it is crime/disparity inner city communities right here in the USA. Like I said before I know S.A nationals and its just a different lifestyle, I don't care if someone thinks otherwise as they are entitled to their opinion


But like i said before Islam and hospitality go hand in hand. Countries like Brunei which exhibit a sort of hospitality we just dont see in the USA. When I am walking around here in the states folks don't always reply to me when I say good morning etc. But when I was in Morocco or places in Canada and said As-salamu alaykum to a Muslim, 99% of the time they would reply back with Wa alaykumu s-salam. The times I did not receive a response was most likely because they did not hear me. This is how it is around the Muslim world.

Just Go on wiki travel if you don't believe me,

Pakistan-Pakistanis pride themselves on their tradition of hospitality to guests (Urdu: mehmanawazi, Pashtu: milmastia, Punjabi: puranadari). When entering a house, you will often be showered with tea, sweets and gifts — it's considered ungrateful to refuse these. Finishing a meal involves a delicate balance.... cleaning your plate will invite more to be served, while leaving too much may be a sign you didn't care for it. Aim for leaving just a little, announcing you're full, and heavily praise the food.

Oman -The Omanis are generally very humble and down-to-earth people. The usual rules of respect when traveling in a Muslim country should be followed in Oman, even when locals appear to be a little less uptight than their neighbors.

U.A.E- Emiratis are a proud but welcoming people and, when not in their cars, are generally extremely civil and friendly. .Like most peoples of the world, they welcome visitors who are willing to show some amount of respect and can be extremely generous. (Some expats and visitors do not understand that revealing clothing can be quite offensive to some people, even if nothing is said to the offenders.) Their culture is unique and can be highly conservative, but overall they are quite attuned to the ways, customs, events, media, and manners of the world.



That last message I can not state enough, I understand a select few folks really dislike Islam but I assure you there is no need for this. Different cultures like those of U.A.E are not inferior to your culture or someone else. Its simple things like this


There is just something about hospitality and Islam



Muslims around the world are the pillar of the civilized people. Of course lets not forget about Sweden, a predominantly atheist country(someone correct me if im wrong) with a respectable way of life. This thread is about doing what we can to prevent bullying of Muslims. What I will do is continue to show Muslims living everyday normal lives around the world.