Nothing in this blog can be believed. If you think that anything in this blog is true or factual, you'll need to verify it from another source. Do you understand? No? Then read it again, and repeat this process, until you understand that you cannot sue me for anything you read here. Also, having been sucked into taking part in the mass-murder of more than 3 million Vietnamese people on behalf of U.S. Big Business "interests", I'm as mad as a cut snake (and broke) so it might be a bit silly to try to sue me anyway...

Thursday, May 06, 2004

bin laden fighting on the side of the U.S.?

In an article by Richard A. Clarke, in Time magazine, about bin Laden, he says: "First known to the CIA as one of the Arabs fighting on the side of the US in Afghanistan."

Pardon? "fighting on the side of the US" ??????????????????????


Bin Laden was a fierce freedom fighter (mujahedin) whom the CIA thought it could use. So they trained him and his men, they equipped them whilst even the village idiot would have told them that this man's loyalty would never belong to the US.

Back then, the CIA did its utmost to whip the Islamic fundamentalists into a lather of rage against the occupiers (Soviets) in Afghanistan, and, at the time, Time magazine could not praise these mujahedin more loudly. But if anyone in the CIA, the Pentagon, or the State Department, thought that the mujahedin were somehow fighting for the US, they must all have been on some kind of mind-altering drug. No doubt it was the same drug that caused them to believe that Ho Chi Minh was fighting for Russia or China when in fact he was a fierce nationalist fighting for his own people's freedom from outside interference and who had the overwhelming support of the people.

Sheeesh! Bad blunder by Clarke? Accidental slip of the tongue? I doubt it. More likely it's another attempt to skew history and thereby hypnotise the people into remaining blind to US imperialism. A nasty attempt to get us to think of bin Laden as someone who once fought for the US and then turned traitor. Crap! He was a fierce Islamic fundamentalist freedom fighter who saw the atheistic Soviets as a threat to Islam. Back then the US thought they'd bought him. Not only did he not "stay bought", it is very unlikely that he ever sold out on his principles for the Yankee Dollar.

And these same mujahedin are still fierce Islamic freedom fighters who are still enraged with the occupiers of their lands. This time they see the threat to Islam as The West. And the US, being the prime occupier, still fails to understand this and calls them "terrorists" whilst it is busily stealing global oil resources.

For those of you who have forgotten, Clarke is the former head of "counterterrorism" in the US National Security Council and the author of a recently published book "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror".

Why bother to read this man's book when he can't even understand bin Laden. But isn't that so American?

I hate bullshit. Anger is...

<<<<< Home