I understand your point about CIA funding of the al-mujahideen. It is an area in which I have some familiarity and I was aquainted with Milt Bearden and a number of the other players.

The Islamist movement began in modern times with the fall of the Khalifa in 1924 and the establishment of Al-Ikhwan in 1928 in Egypt. Al-Zawahiri is definitely out of that tradition. Most Americans don't realize Sadat's deal with Israel was a very small part of why he was assassinated.

But Bin-Laden is a Wahhabi and 9-11 hijackers were Wahhabi and they were Wahhabi before the Russians went into Afghanistan and what is being taught in Pakistani madrasa is Wahhabiism.

If we had totally stayed out of the middle east they probably would not have attacked us, but their agenda was not created by our involvement in giving them training and support to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. They believe they caused the fall of the Soviet Union and when we put troops in Saudi Arabia - the land of the Hijaz - and threatened Iraq - the land of the Abbasid Caliphate - they saw us as part of a struggle that goes back a whole lot further than the cold war.

We didn't create the monster, we just gave it stinger missles and a reason to want to hurt us. But Bin-Laden's war is much more with Moubarak and King Faud than with us. 9-11 wasn't about destroying us. It was about making us go home.

>>>If Pat Robertson can be trusted. What Bush told him, tell you something about Dubya. if that statement is right I can not believe any decent human can vote for Bush.
>

For the record, Pat Robertson is delusional, but what did he say Bush told him ?


>The fact is that Abdulwahab has nothing to do with islamists as we know today.
>Ben Laden and his likes were created by the US and Saudi Arabia backed by the Brits and the Pakistani to fight the USSR. Islamist were under control in teh arabic world under leaders such as Abdul-Naser and later Moubarak and Assad, Saddam, Qazafi etc..
>when Briezinsky was asked, Aren't you creating monster to fight teh USSR. he laughed and said you want to compare those few mujahedin to the USSR.
>
>I was one of the students in teh U of texas at Arlington where the CIA brought al-mujahideen from Afghanistan and they where trying to recruit muslims from the US. Their stories were so off the wall I thought that was a joke but I know few students who were serious about going to Afghanistan.
>
>I don't like any Arabic leader, even teh good ones. I am glad that the Baath in Iraq is gone and will be more happy if teh Baath in Syria is gone, but Bush war was based on lie and deception and worst than that teh unrealistic myopic vision of teh future.
>I mean Bush said yesterday he would not mind Islamic Iraq. confusion and have no clue.
>
>Voting for that Lebanese Nader not bad at all.
>
>Mo
>
>
>>Well, truth be told, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab created the Islamists. Like all fanatics, their complaint is not so much with the infidel as with the apostate. Strangely, we became their target when we got involved with a very secular struggle - the first Gulf War - and stationed troops in the land of the Hijaz.
>>
>>I don't think the idea of taking care of the threat in Iraq was due to a misconception about Saddam's secularism. Saddam was Stalin. That was his model. But islamo-fascism (to borrow from Daniel Pipes) cannot be addressed until the lynchpin country is stable. When Iraq is secure, Syria (another secular nation) can be dealt with and we have 'leverage' with the Saudis. Hezbollah will crumble when the Mullahs are hanging from lampposts in Tehran. There are lots of Iranians making nooses as we speak.
>>
>>We had no illusions about the French going in. Chirac is a known quantity. He sold Saddam the reactor the Israeli's destroyed over 20 years ago. Their stand against the invasion of Iraq was never a principled one and no one who knew anything about it believed it was.
>>
>>The Islamists will be dealt with but from a strategic point of view there are many fronts on which it has to be approached. The children chanting "no WMDs" never understood what this was all about and never will. Fortunately the grownups do. Britain went with us because MI6 is still run by grownups and we get a lot of cooperation from the French DGSE and DRM because they protect France's real interests while the politicians sell their national security down the river. (there are parallels to 1939 that are both interesting and disturbing)
>>
>>About WMDs. If a child finds the WMDs he holds a press conference and says "Oh look, oh look, mommy!" When the grownup finds them he bugs them, modifies them, and pops a keyhole satellite over them - and takes the political hit. Think about it.
>>
>>Regarding Syria - they got the message. We took Iraq about as easily as Iraq took Kuwait - and in a war - Iraq would have kicked Syria's butt.
>>
>>Libya *definitely* got the message.
>>
>>>The fact is
>>>The Neo-con miscalculated where they thought if the stand firm the whole world will follow and Dubya saw glory of getting rid of teh grazy Islamists by attacking a secular state. by the way we all know who created those Islamists.
>>>
>>>As of today, I pray taht Iraq will stabilize soon and whomever win the election will find a good exit stategy from Iraq.
>>>
>>>Then, let's kick Syria's derrier lol
>>>
>>>Mo
>>>
>>>>And
>>>>
>>>>Saddam had money - enough to buy the Chirac government, the UN officials administering oil for food, and sweeten the Russians and Chinese. But more importantly - he had the money to *buy* a nuke - from N Korea most likely, rogues in Pakistan or Russia possibly. If there was even a whiff of that Israel would melt Baghdad into a sheet of glass. Anyone who can't figure that out doesn't understand they dynamics of the region.
>>>>
>>>>The justification for the war had to be reduced to bumper sticker size so it would fit into the 20 seconds of attention the average american gives to foreign policy, but for the neo-cons who pushed for it, Kenneth Pollack laid it out as a very compelling case, and the strategic arguements were compelling.