Forum menu
I can read the whole article but I guess this paragraph sums up my point.
Taliban forces in Afghanistan still have about 100 U.S.-supplied Stingers, according to U.S. intelligence estimates, and the weapons are potentially well suited to destroy the helicopters that are expected to soon begin ferrying U.S. special forces into the country.
Is your point "the Taliban had US weapons in 2001 and this proves the CIA funded Bin Laden"?
Connoisseurs will note the immediate abandonment of Robin Cook as a source and the shift to "yeah, well you can prove anything with books, can't you?"...
Edit: eff this
Mujahedeen - disparate rebel groups mostly native Afghanis from various ethnic groups
Taliban coalition of three or more ethic pashtun Mujahedeen groups
Al Qaeda largely Arab lbut almost exclusively foreign to Afghanistan terrorist group
Is your point “the Taliban had US weapons in 2001 and this proves the CIA funded Bin Laden”?
No that's not my point at all. If you read back carefully you will see that it was in response to this :
"The evidence says he fought with the mujahedeen who were being supplied weapons by the Chinese and ****stanis"
The clue was in my accompanying comment :
"They weren’t supplied by either China nor ****stan."
And there is no "abandonment" of Robin Cook as a source....wtf is a connoisseur in this context, unless you feel that using pretentious language somehow makes your point more valid?
The former UK Foreign Secretary's opinion on the matter is not somehow less valid than the opinion of some random geezer on a mtb forum who reckons that he's read a book.
Robin Cook's opinions carry a lot of weight. He was well-formed, took his brief very seriously, would have accessed far more material than I am ever likely to, including restricted information.
He was right about the Iraq war, ie Iraq didn't have WMDs, it was attacked because it was weak not because it was a threat, and the war was a disaster. But feel free to dismiss him if his opinions don't fit in with your narrative.
first time i've watched the new GB TV and they were really laying into Biden on this - never mind the role Trump played earlier. Evil little channel, that i have now hidden on the EPG.
Robin Cook’s opinions carry a lot of weight
It's the opinion of a politician, and a politician who spent time in the Foreign Office so everything he says is supposed to be open to interpretation, that's literally his job. He knows that anything he writes will be read be people who still have to deal with the FCO, and everything he says has to be able to be "interpreted" by those people. There's numerous audiences that he's writing for. But yeah, by all means take it face value if you want. I genuinely don't think you're that naive though
But feel free to dismiss him if his opinions don’t fit in with your narrative.
Literally everyone and anyone has an opinion, it's still not evidence of anything, and the evidence (what there is publicly available) makes his statement about Washington being surprised about the activities of bin Laden laughably innaccurate.
and to think, that’s the same fella (Bandar Bin Sultan) that set the Al Yamamah deal in motion which got Prince Andrew all het up when it looked like the Serious Fraud Office were going to delve deeper.
Wonder what Sherard Cowper Coles, Her Majesty’s Ambassador to Saudi Arabia at the time, who successfully intervened to prevent full investigation, before becoming HM Ambassador to Afghanistan the very next year is up to now?
Sherard Cowper Coles, was Robin Cook's PPS 1999-2001...
It's all very well to suggest the CIA or MI6 (or the many other intelligence agencies with whom they collaborate) are organizations in chaos, with no real co-ordination; in fact, if you look at this paragraph:
US intelligence helped Saddam's Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time in 1963. Evidence suggests that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as early as 1959, when he participated in a failed assassination attempt against Iraqi strongman Abd al-Karim Qassem. In the 1980s, the US and Britain backed Saddam in the war against Iran, giving Iraq arms, money, satellite intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon precursors. As many as 90 US military advisors supported Iraqi forces and helped pick targets for Iraqi air and missile attacks.
It would be hard to argue that the outcome of CIA efforts supporting Saddam Hussein in the late 50s was mapped out decades in advance... I for one wouldn't suggest that for a moment, however, when you modus operandi is to covertly plough weapons into a situation, you can't really be too suprised when
a) You spark a trend whereby the global arms race intensifies and more and more resources and funding are ploughed into the weapons trade as nations rush to remain competitive and protect their interests (which just so happens to be quite profitable for many in political, military and intelligence circles)
and
b) It blows up in your face
Quite aside from all this, just why is it that the UK and US remain so in league with Saudi Arabia, happy to turn a blind eye to all manner of transgressions, from the orchestrated spread of wahhabism, to the vast humanitarian crisis in Yemen, to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi (who lest we forget, is reported to have been Saudi Intelligence's go-between with Osama Bin Laden)?
I will take your opinion onboard Nick.
Literally everyone and anyone has an opinion
Yeah it's a bit like anthropogenic climate change, but I decide who to trust.
I have no idea why I've got pulled up for quoting a foreign secretary though, or why his opinions are somehow less valid than yours or politecamaraman.
Especially when his analysis of Iraq/the terrorist situation, based on exactly the same intelligence access as the prime minister, proved to be so much more accurate than Tony Blair's.
I've offered an alternative pov to yours, you decide if you want to accept it. Whatever your conclusion it's unlikely to have a global impact.
When did kaBULL become Karble?