Superstring - Please Respond

[Gustav]

crap in my inbox

Stop trolling or criticizing my mod style in the WE&P fora. There are other threads for that of which you have obviously availed yourself. Feel free to continue to do so.

I need you to understand completely that:

A) I'm not debating you on any topic in any forum, especially the ones which I moderate. I'm ignoring you, which is my right. I don't think you posses the ability to understand the debate or write in complete sentences. I'm not amused by your annoying gibberish and incoherent rhetoric. I don't think it's cute, I don't think it's a window into some complex way of thinking. I think it's annoying and distracting. While it does not, in any way, violate rules, I still think it's pretty lame and therefore would rather not engage or respond to you. Feel free to return the favor. I won't complain.

B) In the thread on "Drones", I never made great claims of any kind. In fact, I questioned those of others, gave my opinion (which require no support) stated what led me to believe the way I do (which is the polite thing to do), then requested that the extraordinary claims that were made (i.e. Bhutto was assassinated by the CIA, that the USA was actively destabilizing Pakistan) be backed up by verifiable facts. I am not required to prove a negative. If I were, then I could make claims like, "Gustav is a child rapist. . ." and then burden YOU with the task of proving otherwise. It just doesn't work like that.

C) I will not permit you to troll, flame or hijack the threads in the WE&P for your own purposes. Go somewhere else and play if this is too difficult for you to understand.

Thus far you were issued an infraction (by accident, should have been a "warning", which was reversed), had posts deleted, and now have me sending you a PM on what not to do in the WE&P subfora. The next instance of you attempting to hijack a thread or trolling in the WE&P subfora will result in a three day suspension of your account.

The WE&P threads have titles, anything other than the discussion of the named (or appropriately divergent) topic therein will not be permitted.

~String

dear string

again i support you on this incident with straw
lets however look at this....

"In the thread on "Drones", I never made great claims of any kind."​

The CIA didn't fund the Mujahideen, the ISI did.

sure you did
the distinction b/w straw's and your claim is merely technical
all you are saying it was not direct, an intermediary was used
the end result is the same, is it not?

in your defense, you do present wiki's operation cyclone link. that alone substantiates your assertion. unfortunately you go on to throw some books in straw's face. that after you criticize straw's op-ed pieces as unsuitable source material

you give us books without any indication as to what sources the author uses to make his and your point

if i notice you doing that again, i will make it an issue
such laxity in research, such sloppiness, will not be tolerated in here
i am sure you will agree with me, ja?

 

[Gustav]

ahhh
it all comes back to me.... charlie wilson's war and the ensuing controversy
lets go down memory lane then...

now
since i have zero confidence in my ability write and retain any material posted in string's forum, i might as well do it here

straw, wholly ignorant of the facts was inadvertently correct when he implied (i think) that there was a direct connection from the usa to afghanistan

The history of the CIA funding of the Mujahideen is known. http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/cia-destabilizing-pakistan/ and http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7705

The CIA didn't fund the Mujahideen, the ISI did.

what shabby efforts...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------​

link

The United States began training insurgents in, and directing propaganda broadcasts into Afghanistan from Pakistan in 1978.[42] Then, in early 1979, U.S. foreign service officers began meeting insurgent leaders to determine their needs.[43] According to the then US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, CIA aid to the insurgents within Afghanistan was approved in July 1979, six months before the Soviet Invasion.[44]​

--------------------------------------------------------------------​

link

1978: CIA Begins Covert Action in Afghanistan

The CIA begins covert action against the Communist government in Afghanistan, which is closely tied to the Soviet Union. Some time this year, the CIA begins training militants in Pakistan and beaming radio propaganda into Afghanistan. By April 1979, US officials are meeting with opponents of the Afghan government to determine their needs. [Blum, 1995, pp. 344] Robert Gates, who will become CIA Director in the early 1990s, will later recall that in a meeting on March 30, 1979, Under Secretary of Defense Walter Slocumbe wonders aloud whether there is “value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, ‘sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire.’” [Gates, 1996, pp. 145] In March 1979, there is a major revolt in Herat province, and in June and August there are large scale army mutinies. [Cooley, 2002, pp. 5] President Carter will formally approve covert aid to opponents of the government in July (see July 3, 1979), which will result in a Russian invasion in December (see December 8, 1979).

May 1979: CIA Begins Working with Hekmatyar and Other Mujaheddin Leaders Chosen by ISI

As the US mobilizes for covert war in Afghanistan (see 1978 and July 3, 1979), a CIA special envoy meets Afghan mujaheddin leaders at Peshawar, Pakistan, near the border to Afghanistan. All of them have been carefully selected by the Pakistani ISI and do not represent a broad spectrum of the resistance movement. One of them is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a drug dealer with little support in Afghanistan, but who is loyal to the ISI. The US will begin working with Hekmatyar and over the next 10 years over half of all US aid to the mujaheddin will go to his faction (see 1983). Hekmatyar is already known as brutal, corrupt, and incompetent. [McCoy, 2003, pp. 475] His extreme ruthlessness, for instance, his reputation for skinning prisoners alive, is considered a plus, as it is thought he will use that ruthlessness to kill Russians. [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 267-268]

July 3, 1979: President Carter Approves Covert Aid to Anti-Soviet Forces in Afghanistan

President Carter authorizes covert aid for opponents of the Communist government in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Adviser, will state in 1998, “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujaheddin began… after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan… But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.… We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.” [Le Nouvel Observateur (Paris), 1/15/1998] After Brzezinski’s confession, other US officials who denied US involvement prior to the Soviet invasion will change their story as well. For instance, Charles Cogan, who is head of the CIA covert aid program to Afghanistan at this time, will call Carter’s approval on this day a “very modest beginning to US involvement.” [Cooley, 2002, pp. 10] In fact, even this is not correct because the CIA had been aiding the rebels since at least the year before (see 1978 and 1973-1979). The Soviets invade Afghanistan by the end of 1979 (see December 8, 1979).​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------​

expanding on the brzezinski interview...

*translation by bill blum
*there are two versions, french and english. the latter does not contain the interview

Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*​

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------​

then from string's operation cyclone link, we have.....

On July 3, 1979, U.S. President Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan​

expanding on that by way of another wiki link

The anti-communist rebels garnered support from the United States. As stated by the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and current US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs From the Shadows, the US intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime.

Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated: "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, December 24, 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting US policy, which, unbeknownst even to the mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled: "We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap ... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."[18]

Additionally, on July 3, 1979, Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan.[19] As a part of the Central Intelligence Agency program Operation Cyclone, the massive arming of Afghanistan's mujahideen was started.[20]​

-------------------------------------------------------​

an example of the "covert propaganda operations"

In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code. (link)​

obviously the research is incomplete, most of wiki's citations lead back to books. for instance, are there any actual govt docs released pertaining to carter's authorizations for funding covert ops in afghanistan?

string?

 

[countezero]

I'm sorry Gustav, but what does that "prove" exactly? Your point has been lost on me, I'm afraid.

My understanding of CIA aid in Afghanistan is that most of it was funneled through the ISI, but I would have to go back and re-read things to see if this is true. The money from 1979, which you mention, was quickly overtaken and re-routed once the larger Op began. And none of this, of course, details how the US killed Bhutto or destabilizes Pakistan, which, I think, were the claims String initially objected to?

 

[Gustav]

I'm sorry Gustav, but what does that "prove" exactly? Your point has been lost on me, I'm afraid.

heh
that the truth is complex? that both pov's could be relatively true? why prominence is given to the middleman? (pakistan/isi)

My understanding of CIA aid in Afghanistan is that most of it was funneled through the ISI, but I would have to go back and re-read things to see if this is true. The money from 1979, which you mention, was quickly overtaken and re-routed once the larger Op began.

be my guest. i for one, am interested

And none of this, of course, details how the US killed Bhutto or destabilizes Pakistan, which, I think, were the claims String initially objected to?

"initial", "subsequent"
so what?
my responses, my choices

 

[leopold]

to blame the USA exclusively for what is happening in afghanistan is ludicrous, the soviets et al are as much to blame as any other country.

why the big hoopla about afghanistan anyway?
in my opinion the answer is its a prime source of opium, one of the major funders for covert actions around the world.
i guess the same could be said of other illicit drugs.

 

[spidergoat]

It has a strategically important position, that's why the British cared about it.

 

[countezero]

to blame the USA exclusively for what is happening in afghanistan is ludicrous, the soviets et al are as much to blame as any other country.

There is plenty more blame to go round than that.

Blame Iran for giving money and support and shelter to the violent Afghan militias in their neighborhood.

Blame Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for spawning the Taliban and helping fund them. OBL is on that list, too.

Or go even further back and blame India for driving its Muslims out, and as a result, helping create a state that slowly was radicalized because of its overt religious nature.

heh
that the truth is complex? that both pov's could be relatively true? why prominence is given to the middleman? (pakistan/isi)

I am sorry, but there is no such thing as relative truth. There is truth and there is its opposite.

To restate what I asked, and what you ignored, I am not sure what you are driving at and what "it" means. So what if the US gave the money to Pakistan who gave it to the Afghans? So what if the US just gave the Afghans the money? How does either condition, and I give prominence to neither, begin to give powder to the idiotic claims being made by people in the thread.

be my guest. i for one, am interested

Then do some research.

Make claims based on that, back them up.

It's not my job -- or String's -- to prove a negative. An argument was made, it was rebutted with an argument based on sources. So far, from what I can tell, the response has been for people to crow about the sources and insist their argument is right simply because it is their argument.

"initial", "subsequent"
so what?
my responses, my choices

Yeah. So in other words you are being an argumentative troll and have nothing add. Duly noted.

I mean, I just sat here and watched you demand the sources of the sources String listed. That's either amateurish game-playing or you really are incapable of following an argument. What do you want the bibliography of two Pulitzer prize-winning books? Does anyone really believe that even if they were posted -- and they are extremely well cited -- you would suddenly admit the contain they contain? I don't. Not for a second.

 

[Gustav]

I mean, I just sat here and watched you demand the sources of the sources String listed.

i don't believe that. there has to be something else going on. i mean, you are obviously not following either my train of thought..... nor yours!

case in point........

My understanding of CIA aid in Afghanistan is that most of it was funneled through the ISI, but I would have to go back and re-read things to see if this is true.

i reply...

be my guest. i for one, am interested

you counter with.....

Then do some research.

Make claims based on that, back them up.

It's not my job -- or String's -- to prove a negative.

so ahh..
you have to excuse my befuddlement. did you not want to verify something? what additional claims do you want me to make? in fact, what have i claimed so far? what negative am i asking you and string to prove? wait....who are you?

so ahh......

I mean, I just sat here and watched you demand the sources of the sources String listed.

you find that activity unusual? sitting and watching that is. what else would you be doing? hmm, dont answer that.

What do you want the bibliography of two Pulitzer prize-winning books? Does anyone really believe that even if they were posted -- and they are extremely well cited -- you would suddenly admit the contain they contain? I don't. Not for a second.

fortunately, i expect nothing from you and what you believe what i would or would not do is really quite inconsequential and of no import to me

string on the other hand has an inkling what is being asked here. for instance....

In the case of "The Looming Tower" and "Ghost Wars" I can state specific pages and quotes that are referenced.

not bibliography as you put it. just something specific i can sink my teeth into
so ahh...
you are free to be as gullible as you want. i just will not be joining you in that endeavor. i do hope you understand. standards and whatnot

/snicker

 

[Gustav]

i believe there is a cautionary tale to stuff that unfolded in this thread.
well, two actually. the first...

but I'd suggest you might want to take a look around you at how certain other political members have faired of late, particularly when they have argued about moderator bias.

gustav:

If you want to keep sticking your neck out, bear in mind that it may come back to bite you sooner or later.

deplorable conduct, dont you think?
disputes are settled by violence rather than reconciliation. sheer thuggery


the 2nd........

lets consider the fact that by the time we get around to quoting and citing sources, we are quite committed to get our pov across. why then would we sabotage our efforts by merely throwing a book in our audience's face? does one really think if said book is not already in one's possession, he will troupe down to the nearest bookstore or library to pick up a copy?. an expectation in a forum where members are even loathe to clink on a single link?

the world fori is not p&m where it appears all have their copies of hoary old standards by guys like wheeler, feynman and griffiths. we need something now. something immediately appraisable. something online

i am of course not saying one cannot cite a book. you can do so if you feel your pov will be ultimately prevail when contents of said book are perused. however, when do you think that is going to happen? will it ever? what does that contribute to the discussion in the here and now? i say absolutely nothing. it is a plain and simple appeal to authority. fallacious argumentation especially egregious when considering the context in which it occurs....politics!

secondly, at the very least, identify the relevant portions in the book and name the sources referenced

give us something substantial to mull on. i think then the discussion can move forward

 

[hypewaders]

Gustav, you raise an important point about portable and accessible references and I applaud it.

I would encourage anyone creating a thread to use and edit your opening post as a repository of links supporting your position. I would encourage anyone seeing the value in this to make regular reference to your key links. That's what I'm personally going to try, anyway.

If we can raise the standard of evidence here, we can also raise the discussion on many levels. Let's support our arguments openly and well. Some progress in these regards will help us to get through some growing pains and advance around here as a sincere but not-too-stifling discussion forum.

Stand. Deliver. Now, laugh it off.

 

[countezero]

Oh, please.

 

[hypewaders]

Please share with us the basis of your position, countezero. Maybe you have a white paper repudiating the importance of being earnest.

 

[sandy]

Please share with us the basis of your position, countezero. Maybe you have a white paper repudiating sincerity.

Yeah, and make sure you have plenty of scientific proof!

 

[hypewaders]

Yes, thank you Sandy. Subtext matters awfully around here.

 

[countezero]

Please share with us the basis of your position, countezero. Maybe you have a white paper repudiating the importance of being earnest.

Earnestness has nothing to do with origin of this conversation, so you can climb down off that horse Hype.

 

[hypewaders]

Alright- I'm standing right here in nothing but beach shorts, so don't feel threatened.

We're making a pact here to elevate the quality of our posts, specifically with clear, accessible references. I know I can do better.

Are you in or not?

 

[Gustav]

ahhh
i figured out why this conte guy made an appearance here

Conversation Between countezero and superstring01

i guess it would be hilarious if it was not so retarted

Alright- I'm standing right here in nothing but beach shorts, so don't feel threatened.

fly away, hype
fly for your life!

 

[countezero]

Alright- I'm standing right here in nothing but beach shorts, so don't feel threatened.

We're making a pact here to elevate the quality of our posts, specifically with clear, accessible references. I know I can do better.

Are you in or not?

I've been in. Take your glasses off. I routinely back my ideas, which you abhor, up with sources. I've never seen you do that.

Gustav is a troll. The fact he is a troll who agrees with your brand of nonsens is immaterial. Recognize it and move on.

 

[countezero]

ahhh
i figured out why this conte guy made an appearance here

Conversation Between countezero and superstring01

i guess it would be hilarious if it was not so retarted




fly away, hype
fly for your life!

Care to share how you hacked my PMs fuck tard?

I cry a big foul on this. Big foul...

 

[Bells]

Care to share how you hacked my PMs fuck tard?

I cry a big foul on this. Big foul...

Umm, lrn2pm princess.