Politics....what really happened?

[Shura Balaganov]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hoax.html
I don't know if anyone really cares, with all this Java stuff...But I don't believe in 9/11 anymore.
"The American military bases along the oil-bearing 40th parallel in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenia, Uzbekistan will cut Russia off the Central Asia, they will control the traffic ways from China and India – on the whole America may control the entire Eurasia. However, this strategic line may become a lump that can not be swallowed or spit out. The trump card of the American expansion - the economic well-being – may be topped by another card – the Islamic fundamentalism. It is not possible to outbid a person who is ready to die for his belief. It is not possible to frighten such a person, there is a chance some agreement may be achieved, but it is absolutely pointless to haggle. So the combination of the missile strike and humanitarian aid looks idiotic. America has already demonstrated the absolute incomprehension of the things going, when the American mass media could not say anything definite regarding the events of September 11. According to CNN, the major reason, which caused all that was…cowardice."
Russian press, Pravda, 10-08-2001
Shura

[Shura Balaganov]

Do I believe in anything at all???
Shura

[Ashok Mash]

I even believe X-Files The Movie
Let me summarise some of such conspiracy theories that I have heard over a period of time. Most of them have a 'large untapped Central Asian oil reserve' in it. And the strategically important position of Afghanistan is also repeated in many cases.
According to one such plot, USSR was interested in that the oil reserve as well as in Afghanistan, so they moved their forces into Afghanistan. Cold war rival USA, spun out plans to get USSR out of Afghanistan by pushing Funds, Ammunition, Intelligence and Training to native Afghans through Pakistan. [Holywood productions like Rambo stress this fact]. As always it was successful, Russian forces withdrew and Taliban (CIA trained, Afghan and Pakistani youths) took over the control of Afghanistan.
Now the side effects:
Extremist groups grew stronger in Pakistan. All of the American funding didn?t go to Afghans. Some of it stayed back to feed the extremists.
Insurgencies in Kashmir by these groups, dubbed as freedom struggle by a Pakistani government, which was actually afraid of these groups because of the public support that they have earned through Muslim extremism and because of their close ties with ISI and Pakistani army, which already has a bad reputation of disobeying the elected government.
And disastrous of all, some policy shift in USA left Talibans to starve, and naturally they took the route of Muslim extremism. That fetched them more than enough funding from other states in the region who consider USA as their enemy. In return Taliban helped them with providing base and men, especially top quality CIA-trained maniacs like Osama Bin Laden to their special group later notorious as ?Al-Queda?.
Rest is history as we all saw in CNN. And, I do believe this.

[Jason Menard]

Well Shura, Pravda always has been regarded as the paragon of responsible journalism. They have always been very good at telling people exactly what they want to hear (or what the government wants the people to hear).
Regarding the history lesson probably gleaned from the Times of India, the facts on the creation of the Taliban are a little off. The Taliban were founded in Kandahar by graduates of Pakistani religious colleges, not CIA trained Mujahadeen as implied. Their goal was to take advantage of the power vacuum that remained after the Soviet withdrawal in order to impose their strict version of Islam on the country. They did not turn extremist because we "left them to starve". They were born as an extremist group with roots in Pakistan. They were for the most part not Afghanis who fought the Soviets. A good portion of the Taliban fighters were actually not native Afghanis. However if the US had continued to provide funding the Mujahadeen groups after the Soviets fled Afghanistan, it is possible that the Taliban would not have been able to come to power.
Of course even the phrase "leaving to starve" is ridiculous in this context as the funds we had been providing all along were military funds. Further, equally ridiculous is the notion that the rise of Islamic extremism in the region has anything to do with a lack of US funding. In addition, the funding given to the Taliban by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other Gulf states had nothing to do with the fact that the Taliban were "enemies of the US", particularly since the US initially viewed the Taliban as a stabilizing force in the country, and appreciated the fact that they were anti-Iran, until their extremism got out of hand. No, the funding given by these other nations was a result of the Taliban spreading the flavor of Islam in the region that these other states favored.
Referring to bin Laden as CIA trained is also quite a large stretch. Reportedly, the CIA did provide funds to many of the Arab groups fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Some of this funding was used for training. They were not CIA trained, however some of their training was made possible because of funds provided by the CIA. Big difference.
Now come on folks, let's think a little bit before posting "facts" from certain sources. Just as I wouldn't scour the pages of the New York Times looking for unbiased information about the Republican Party, I would think you guys would know better than to use Pravda as an unbiased source of information about the US government, or the Times of India as a source of unbiased information about Pakistan/Afghanistan/Kashmir.
[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Sita Kodali]

or the Times of India as a source of unbiased information about Pakistan/Afghanistan/Kashmir.
I don't know how Newyork Times treats the Republican Party, but the Times of India is regarded as one of the best publications in India (if not in Asia) and I'm sure I know better about Times of India than you know about the Newyork Times.
If you happen to have a trip to London or want to know more about this Kashmir issue, know more about it here
HTH
--
Venkat

[Ashok Mash]

I admit, 'Left to starve' was inappropriate for that context. Actually, I didn't literally mean 'left to starve' as a ?no food, no water? situation. My idea was some thing like ?no major influx of surplus money? etc i.e. Talibans and Afghans were left to live on what they make from rugged Afghan terrains.
Not naming any one particularly, Taliban is the outcome of some of the shortsighted policies by some of the super powers out there. How does this sound?
Well, my views could be slightly spoiled with biased media reviews, for a while now, I am trying to identify and follow unbiased news from more trustable sources. I normally follow BBC News here, and a BBC report suggests that CIA could have trained Osama Bin Laden directly. Here is the Link : Who is Osama Bin Laden?
Well, I wont bet my money on any such conspiracy theorems simply because I cannot verify any of those arguments myself. Its just that we all tend to believe things what we could assimilate from the news that everyone is talking about ? like there is a frozen water-ice this many meters under the Mars surface.

[Shura Balaganov]

Since we all can't really identify trusted sources, I will again use "reason", or "logical explanation" concepts, and then we can pick a fight later.
1. All news about so called "war on terror" in US come from one source: US government. This alone almost immediately reminds me of Soviet era of full blown propaganda and cover-up, which is THE ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION I can see. Why big journalist powerhouses like CNN and FOX NEWS wouldn't send journalists to Afghanistan to investigate, and wouldn't broadcast life reports from there? Because it is very easy to trace who is in control of these companies.
2. BBC. It is obvious, that in this situation the only REASONABLY reliable source of information can come from abroad (thanks god for Internet!) BBC seems to be a lot more pro-English than it is pro-American, and therefore it prowides somewhat alternative way to look at things; although their ALTERNATIVE is, REASONABLE to assume, biased and controled as well.
3. Those of us who speak other foreign languages are lucky enough to be able to read other foreign news and create our own REASONING. As far as I am concerned, Propaganda in US is even more powerful than in former Soviet States. Now, russians over the years of propaganda bombardment evolved this 7th sense of smelling it and either tuning out or turning their BRAINS on. Now, when you read biased press coming from 3 different countries, it is not impossible to analyze discrepancies and filter what is BS and where are small pieces of facts, and put a puzzle together. So far, this puzzle doesn't fit "war on terror" BS concept. :roll:
4. Was it Osama bin Laden (ObL) who did it? Who is that powerful ObL and this misterious Al Quaeda, who, from the caves of remote country rules the world? Doesn't it sound like a plot of a cheap movie? When someone attempts to rule the world, he COMES OUT and TAKES CONTROL. :roll:
5. Why "terrorism"? Why deeply religious people would all of a sudden deside: ok, let blow bombs and crash planes? It is REASONABLE to assume (and I don't see any reason against it) that 9/11 was a RETALIATIONARY ACT towards something US government did. Was it a CIAs fault, oil or drugs dispute, I don't know. But if it was a retaliation, it was a retaliation to a REASNOABLY STRONG action, in wich case WHO is the first terrorist? Also, it is logical to assume that US government WAS AWARE that retalitory action might take place, because whoever they stepped on shoud've warned them not to do so.
Anyhow, in lack of information about the subject, it is hard not to fall into conspiracy path
Shura