ISIS Releases Global Takeover Map

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
The truth is that some of the nations on the map could be controlled. But I think what these militants fail to realize is the true scope of such a massive endeavour. It is more like a 100 year plan maybe. Speaking from the point of view of military and political strategy, there is a difference between simply having insurgents in a region and truly controlling a nation. To do the latter they will have to leave resources in every single city they capture. We are talking about more than insurgent warfare. It is a bold strategy to be sure, but it cannot function alongside a strictly guerilla warfare strategy. Guerilla warfare is NOT about controlling population centers, and that is one of the reasons it is so hard to beat an insurgency.

The insurgents could not be beaten precisely because they did not behave like a regular military. But they will have to start transitioning into a regular military to be able to achieve a goal this massive. And when they do that they become much more susceptible to modern military opposition.

Guerrilla warfare rolls out in "phases" or "stages", and here you are recognizing only the first and middle phase, the "guerrillas in the mists" phase, where they control only mostly unpopulated countryside. In the final stages, guerrilla warfare IS about controlling population centers, and those stages are entered when enough countryside has been controlled to bulk up the insurgent military forces.

Using the Sandinista wars in Nicaragua as an example, the guerrillas were irritating when they only roamed the countryside, but deadly when they had gained enough critical mass to go after population centers like Esteli, Leon, and finally Managua, the capitol. By then, it was too late to stop them, and they rolled over the country like a plague of locusts, taking control of everything.

Guerrilla warfare is a complex thing, the character of which changes over time s it enters new phases of conflict - it's NOT about controlling only the hinterlands - that is only the middle phases. If it stopped there, no guerrilla war would ever be won. To control people, you need people to control, and that involves gaining control of population and administrative centers.

originally posted by: Vovin

ISIL now is an evolution from the mujahideen of the 1970s. The hunted is handed a spear and fire, then they become the hunter.

I think I differ with that opinion, but perhaps I should let you clarify just what you mean here before I commence to taking issue with it, You could begin by specifying just WHICH mujaheddin "of the 1970's" you are referring to...

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Vovin

ISIL now is an evolution from the mujahideen of the 1970s. The hunted is handed a spear and fire, then they become the hunter.

I think I differ with that opinion, but perhaps I should let you clarify just what you mean here before I commence to taking issue with it, You could begin by specifying just WHICH mujaheddin "of the 1970's" you are referring to...

I am talking about the mujahideen of Afghanistan. Great book called "Ghost Wars" that details how Brzezinski (NSA) and the CIA turned ragtag mujahideen fighters into exceptional guerrilla fighters. They became stronger than their rivals and kept monopolizing various factions until they got to where they are today. The names have changed but essentially it's the same force, just expanded in terms of fighter strength, geography and scale of their goals.

From the beginning, US operatives were telling them that they support their struggle as long as it meant pushing back the USSR. Then the struggle continued after the USSR.

I'm sure it goes back further than the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, but that's where the current Islamic State movement originates from in my opinion.

a reply to: Vovin

You know, that's what I thought you meant, but the decade threw me off and made me uncertain. That was the 80's, not the 70's. The Soviets didn't invade until December, 1979, and the muj fought them for just short of a decade, until March, 1989.

Those were NOT AQ nor were they the Taliban. I have "Ghost Wars", but have never read it, and am probably glad I haven't if that's what Coll claims in it - in doing so, it besmirches the honor of some very dear friends, some of whom died fighting against AQ and the Taliban.

Although some of the names remain the same (Gulbuddin Hekmatyar comes to mind, the bastard), it is emphatically NOT the same force. Hekmatyar only joined the Taliban because he's a power-hungry sumbitch, and switches sides more often than most Afghans switch socks. He was a muj commander, then he was in the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, then switched sides to the Taliban after the US went in and he realized he'd never be king with the US there.

I'm not sure what you mean by "became stronger than their rivals" - their rivals were the Soviets. Nor do I understand what you mean by "monopolizing" various factions. Who "monopolized" the factions? The CIA? I can assure you that was not the case - Afghans are pretty recalcitrant and hard headed. It was hard enough to train them, much less monopolize them. The various "Arab Afghans" couldn't be monopolized at all - hell, bin Laden REFUSED US assistance for that very reason - he wanted nothing to do with the US. Then again, he was hardly a fighter or battlefield commander, either. I only know of one battle he even "participated" in - from a safe distance, via radio - just so that he could put "battle hardened" on his resume. He was mostly just an engineer and construction worker, brought his own money and equipment to Afghanistan, refused US aid or anything that smacked of US involvement, and built "stuff", like bunkers and roads.

The "struggle" continued after the USSR left because the dumbass US left just as fast as the Russians did, right on their heels, and left a power vacuum there. The Taliban was created by Pakistani ISI in 1994 (five years after the Soviet withdrawal) to try to fill that vacuum with an ISI - compliant government, the mujahideen took exception to that, and the Northern Alliance was eventually born to combat the Taliban, the NA being built mostly from the raw materials of the old muj. The Taliban was viewed by them as "foreign invaders", no different from the Soviets.

Nossir, they are not the "same force".

The current Islamic State movement originates in the wahabbist movement in general, the Muslim Brotherhood in particular, and the writings of Hassan al-Bana (the originator of the Muslim Brotherhood) most particularly. You're right in that it is much older than the Soviet War in Afghanistan, and wrong about the mujahideen participation in it. The mujahideen were only about throwing the Soviets out of their country, and keeping Afghanistan for Afghans, not foreigners, the foreigners including the Pakistani Taliban and the "Afghan Arabs" who tried to stay on to get their own slice of the power pie.

Generally, I mostly agree with your comments and assessments in this thread, but I believe you are way out in left field with this one.

a reply to: nenothtu

I wish I could give you ten stars for truly Denying Ignorance.

a reply to: nenothtu

Even though you know some things on this subject, I disagree on the key point.

Brzezinski was the geostrategist who was looking for ways to defeat the USSR, and was the general strategist who, later on, boasted about his role in organizing the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan.

"Ghost Wars" describes how the CIA went in on the ground in Afghanistan to try to make contact with resistance groups fighting against the Soviets.

The CIA / NSA made contact with Osama bin Laden, who was a rich Saudi leading some mujahideen forces. Bin Laden and his forces were turned into CIA assets. They were given logistics, weapons (like Stingers and Lee-Enfield rifles), training, etc.


Here is Brzezinski with bin Laden:


Here is Brzezinski's speech he gave to his mujahideen friends in Pakistan, promising that they will return to Afghanistan someday, "God is on your side":


As for your post, I think that you think that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are more or less the same thing. Maybe because that was the pretext for the western invasion of Afghanistan. Except that it's not true at all and in fact it was an outright lie by the Bush administration to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. It was why 9/11 was so important.

al-Qaeda itself was created by mujahideen that fought the Soviets. They wanted to make an asymmetrical network to counter western and eastern imperialism in what they consider to be relevant territory to Sunni Islam, which politically speaking, is dictated by the Saudi kingdom and the UAE.

Asymmetrical is the key word here. It means they are not bound by national boundaries and can operate pretty much anywhere. Meaning that these guys started off in Afghanistan as anti-Soviet mujahideen, then founded al-Qaeda after their success due to American covert support and spread their operations far beyond Afghanistan.

a reply to: Vovin

Brzezinski was jack crap. Didn't know sheep # from parched coffee. He thought himself a grand global "strategist", a legend in his own mind, and kept Carter's Foreign Affairs in constant disarray. Carter was dumb as a box of bricks, and never had the smarts or intestinal fortitude to say "Zbig, how 'bout you go get a cup of coffee an let ME sort this crap out?" Brzezinski was basically just in the right place at the right time to let the limelight hit him, and OTHER folks did all the heavy lifting. There was more to Reagan giving him the boot than just Brzezinski's politics - if you'll recall, Reagan started out life as a Democrat, too, and that was no barrier if he had thought Brzezinski knew anything about foreign policy at all.

You posted a picture of "Brzezinski and bin Laden". That's NOT bin Laden look at the uniform. It's an old, discredited photo flying around the internet claiming to be Brzezinski and "Tim Osman", and it's not "Tim Osman", either. I'll post a couple of pictures of my own, just for you, as my counter -

This is me now (well, recently - a couple of years ago):



... and this was me, then:



There's a reason I know some things on this subject, and there's a reason I know something about the way bin Laden reacted to US "assistance", and how he really was in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was a bit player, no warrior, and was tolerated by the Afghans not for his fighting prowess (nonexistent) or his grand mastery of strategy - he was tolerated because he brought his own money to spread around, and built good infrastructure.

He was not the "Master of Mujahideen" that he is painted to be now. That was all a legend he built himself after the fact, and it appears that some now tend towards eating it up in the wake of 9/11.

I know about the mujahideen being given stingers and training for them, as well as a variety of other things like Chinese and Egyptian AK's and wire-guided ATGM's, but nothing about any British Enfields (they already had boatloads of British Enfields still left over from the British occupation - some of those old farts even went to war with just ancient jezails, for God's sake!) or bin Laden's construction boys being given anything at all. I know that bin Laden and company REFUSED US assistance, or anything that even smelled like US assistance.

As far as Brzezinski's Grand Plan goes, the CIA went in initially IN SPITE of the US government - they hid it from the government until it started bearing fruit, and couldn't be hidden any more. They didn't go in because of Brzezinski. Like I said before, he was just in the right place at the right time to try and hog credit, and most of the ground-pounders that did the heavy lifting were content to let him do that, and stay in the shadows.

Now we have a rewritten "history" because of that, and Gust is dead, so he can't correct it - and I'm not sure he would anyhow.

"Operation Cyclone" was not Brzezinski's baby, no matter how much he tries to take credit for it.

I may HAVE to read "Ghost Wars" for myself now, just to see if Coll really says all that crap.

I'm well aware of the difference between AQ and the Taliban, AND their respective paths to creation, - and ALSO aware of the difference between the Afghan Muj of the 80's and ISIS of today. To be honest, i can't even see that much similarity in their religions, much less their politics. Some few of the Afghan Arabs went on to envision world conquest, but they were not muj, they were "Afghan Arabs". The muj had no such grand plan - they only wanted their country rid of the communists infestation, and didn't much care about the rest of the world.

AQ was created by Afghan Arabs, bin Laden specifically (in council with a few others), NOT by any mujahideen. Even back then there was a distinction between muj and Afghan Arabs, and yet another class you don't hear about much these days called "Foreign Volunteers" because they were foreign, but not Arab, and are now unimportant to The New Narrative (for either side) and relegated to the dustbin of history. The Taliban, on the other hand, was created by Pakistani ISI from a core of Afghan kids in Pakistani madrasas near the border area where refugees were rife, with the addition of some other, non-Afghan, elements. Note that "Taliban" means "the students", because of the madrasas where they were "educated", and ALSO note the it was formed from a core of Afghan REFUGEE CHILDREN (during the war they were growing up in Pakistan) - not muj who actually stayed and fought.

Asymmetrical is the key word here. It means they are not bound by national boundaries and can operate pretty much anywhere. Meaning that these guys started off in Afghanistan as anti-Soviet mujahideen, then founded al-Qaeda after their success due to American covert support and spread their operations far beyond Afghanistan.

"Asymmetrical" as applied to warfare means no such thing - it means that one side is not on par in training or equipment with the other, and so must make up the deficit with guerrilla tactics. I have pointed out that AQ founders were NOT Afghan mujahideen, and I have pointed out that the AQ founders were NOT US supported. It's the little details like that which skew the picture beyond recognition and blurs the lines creating the confusion in an admittedly easily confused atmosphere.

Please understand that I'm not taking you to task - as I said before, I generally agree with your assessments and find your posts to be intelligently written and generally thoughtful. I just think you are out in left field on this particular, and are eating up the revisionist history. I only want to correct a few details to clarify the picture, and I'm doing it for Gust, for Amir, and for another Pole (not Brzezinski) who will remain unnamed here - we can call him "Lech", I suppose - who died in Afghanistan because his main goal in life was to "kill Russians who destroyed my country".

originally posted by: Vovin

Brzezinski was the geostrategist who was looking for ways to defeat the USSR, and was the general strategist who, later on, boasted about his role in organizing the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan.

I have to add this, too, to counter Brzezinki's delusions of adequacy re: "strategy" and boasts about his role in organizing the Soviet defeat...

The actual strategist of the Afghan resistance to the Soviets was a man named Michael Vickers, not Brzezinski. He was a former SF guy and worked in the CIA "Special Activities Division" for a while. Like myself, Vickers seems to think that mega-invasions by boatloads of regular infantry are just not the way to properly counter an asymmetrical foe. He seems to be more a proponent of meeting asymmetry with better trained asymmetry. A lot of SF guys have that notion, probably because of their backgrounds in asymmetrical warfare, and it doesn't hurt that they are usually right - look at the current war in Afghanistan before and after the mass invasion of Legs, and you'll find confirmation of the theory.

Well, Vovin, you got 'er done - got me to finally reading (well, listening to an audio book of) "Ghost Wars". I'm through Part I now, the end of the Soviet Afghan War. I find it pretty accurate in the main, with only minor problems, like Coll's insistence on calling the HIND-D's "MiGs" - they weren't MiG's, they were Mil's - the Mil Mi-24 HIND, a "flying tank". A minor thing, not really detracting from the main narrative.

It's told from a differing viewpoint, of course, than my own, but so far has not contradicted it - in fact, it offers a lot of support for what I've been saying. I've found NO claims so far of any US support for bin Laden and Co., and in fact denials thereof, just as I said.

One problem, perhaps, that my wife pointed out is the way the book is organized... it doesn't follow a straight chronology, instead preferring to group by subject and jumping all over the chronological map within the various subject areas. She thinks that could be confusing to some, and I have to agree. Perhaps that is where the confusion arises.

originally posted by: Vovin
a reply to: nenothtu

Here is Brzezinski with bin Laden:

I've tracked down the origin of those alleged photos og OBL and Zbig. They appeared in the Washington Post, page A19, edition of 4 February, 1980. It originated from a photo op that Brzezinski went on touring the Pakistani Army outposts at the Khyber Pass. I guess that explains the Pak Army uniform the guy is wearing. it was actually a fairly humorous piece, illustrative of the times, and showing a Keystone Strategist among Keystone Kops. I won't quote the whole thing, but will quote the part about the visit to the outpost:

The Washington Post/ February 4, 1980, Monday, Final Edition/

'Zbig' Holds His Fire at Khyber Pass

By Stuart Auerbach, Washington Post Foreign Service/ DATELINE: KHYBER PASS, Pakistan, Feb. 3, 1980

President Carter's national security adviser peered resolutely with gun in hand at Soviet controlled Afghanistan from the top of a Pakistani military outpost high above the strategic Khyber Pass.

It looked like a scene from a late-night Grade B television movie called "Zbig at the Khyber Pass" as Zbigneiw Brzezinski, high White House aide, hesitated for a second and then declined an offer to fire the Chinese-made light machine gun toward Afghanistan. Instead he invited the Pakistani soldier at the gunport to shoot the weapon.

The soldier got off one shot and the gun jammed.

After clearing it, he squeezed off a fast round. But the recoil knocked the soldier back into Brzezinski and the gun started spraying bullets wildly out the gunport.

"Thank God the Russians haven't started firing back," said a Pakistani officer accompanying the Brezezinski tour.

The madcap scene at the old British-built stone picket post -- really a tiny fort perched on top of a hillock two miles from the Afghan border -- climaxed a day's tour of Pakistan's frontier.

Brzezinski had asked to be taken from the Khyber Rifles officers mess in Landi Kotal to one of a string of pickets posts overlooking the Khyber Pass, the route of invading armies since 1600 B.C. when the Aryans moved down from Central Asia into what is now India.

There are actually 3 photos in the series, taken on 3 February 1980 and published the next day, showing the man in question and Brzezinski in various poses - the one you posted, and two with Brzezinski holding the LMG, one with him aiming it downward awkwardly. Other Pak border guards are shown in them, all wearing the same uniform. The full series also shows Brzezinski and the guard are right at the same height, and Brz is (or was then - we shrink with age sometimes) about 5" 11" tall, making the claimed "OBL/Tim Osman" about 5" 11" tall. the problem with that is that OBL was pretty tall, probably about 6'6", and should have been looking down - far down - on Brzezinski. Furthermore, he would probably have been shot as a spy if he had showed up at the Pakistani border in a Pakistani uniform, since he was never in the Pak Army.

Another of the photos from that day can be found here, showing that they are about par for height.

I'd love to lay that nonsense photo to rest, but am under no illusions that I'll ever get it done. I can present the facts, but can't make people believe them - they'll believe what they want to, what fits the narrative they want to believe.

For any who care to seek for themselves, the article in question can be had from the Washington Post Archives as a reprint, $3.95 for a single copy. Go to the "Archives" link at the bottom of the Washington Post web page and type or paste the headline " 'Zbig' Holds His Fire at Khyber Pass " into the search box.

Here is Brzezinski's speech he gave to his mujahideen friends in Pakistan, promising that they will return to Afghanistan someday, "God is on your side":

The speech was to refugees in Pakistan, not muj - mujahideen would not need hope of a someday in the future "return", since they were on the ground in Afghanistan already trading bullets with Soviets.

originally posted by: JHumm
Right, I wonder when they are going to try to tell us that they have a giant "laser" that will blow up the entire earth if we don't surrender. Or they have sharks with lasers strapped to their heads. ...lol

All they want is one meelyun dollars!

a reply to: nenothtu

You can claim I'm in "left field" all you want. Fact is that I spent years in geopolitics and my training revolved around the construction of the American global empire leading to modern day geopolitical realities.

While I am Canadian, we studied many works of Americans. The general narrative is the same.

My soldiers went to Afghanistan to kill and die in helping your soldiers hunt down assets that were created by your government.

President Carter was no idiot as you presume. Carter pioneered American involvement in the Middle East. Carter established the pact with Saudi Arabia, to defend the Saudi Kingdom in exchange for oil. This pact was so important that George W. Bush committed the American military to fulfilling pro-Saudi objectives throughout the Middle East, and Obama had no choice but to continue the strategy.

Brzezinski laid out the American global imperial strategy. He was the architect. This strategy is clearly available in his publications.

There is no one way to look at it. Obviously the perception will differ depending on where you come from.

If we followed the global mainstream media, we would believe that the bad guys of the month, as defined by the Pentagon in Washington DC, are out to invade the USA because they hate American freedoms. Doesn't matter if they are Nazis, Vietcong, Soviets, Russians, Iraqis, Libyans, Syria, Iran or abstract Islamic terrorists.

The other side of the coin, for those who wish to pursue the deeper meaning of global events, shows far more connections and long-term strategy that no American president or liberal media will ever describe.

What is going on in the Middle East now has been a long-time in the making. The Americans empowered anti-Soviet rebels, and the rebels won. Then the rebels moved on to creating their own regional hegemony which made them enemies of the USA.

originally posted by: nenothtu
Well, Vovin, you got 'er done - got me to finally reading (well, listening to an audio book of) "Ghost Wars". I'm through Part I now, the end of the Soviet Afghan War. I find it pretty accurate in the main, with only minor problems, like Coll's insistence on calling the HIND-D's "MiGs" - they weren't MiG's, they were Mil's - the Mil Mi-24 HIND, a "flying tank". A minor thing, not really detracting from the main narrative.

It's told from a differing viewpoint, of course, than my own, but so far has not contradicted it - in fact, it offers a lot of support for what I've been saying. I've found NO claims so far of any US support for bin Laden and Co., and in fact denials thereof, just as I said.

One problem, perhaps, that my wife pointed out is the way the book is organized... it doesn't follow a straight chronology, instead preferring to group by subject and jumping all over the chronological map within the various subject areas. She thinks that could be confusing to some, and I have to agree. Perhaps that is where the confusion arises.

Not sure what confusion you are referring to. I never said that Brzezinski was ever even mentioned in Ghost Wars.

In fact, I only ever read some of Ghost Wars. Back in early high school. I barely remember anything out of it, aside from accounts of clandestine CIA activities to support the mujahideen.

As for your photo analysis, it's probably true. Except there's no real way to know. Obviously OBL was an American asset for some time. It's well known that the Pakistan/Afghan arbitrary border means little to the locals, and it would not be hard to assume that CIA assets would play dress up. The CIA and the Pakistani security service go back a long ways. But I have no proof either way because I was not there. All I know is that the original article that you reference could be fabricated news anyways. I've seen what the media can do during the Iraq war.

originally posted by: Vovin
a reply to: nenothtu

You can claim I'm in "left field" all you want. Fact is that I spent years in geopolitics and my training revolved around the construction of the American global empire leading to modern day geopolitical realities.

My bad. I failed to realize that your "years in geopolitics" and your "training" entirely trumped any experience on the ground that I may have mentioned. Apologies.

My soldiers went to Afghanistan to kill and die in helping your soldiers hunt down assets that were created by your government.

No argument that Canadian soldiers were right there alongside American soldiers in this latest round, killing and dying, but my issue is with your characterization of "assets created by your government". My impression was that they were there hunting down the Taliban, rather than any "assets created by" my government. I've already explained, in some detail, how the Taliban came about. "My government" is not Pakistani ISI.

President Carter was no idiot as you presume. Carter pioneered American involvement in the Middle East. Carter established the pact with Saudi Arabia, to defend the Saudi Kingdom in exchange for oil. This pact was so important that George W. Bush committed the American military to fulfilling pro-Saudi objectives throughout the Middle East, and Obama had no choice but to continue the strategy.

A matter of opinion, I suppose - so you think Carter meddling in the Middle East was a genius move? I still think he was (and still is) an idiot of the highest magnitude, with no clue about Middle Eastern issues - or any other geopolitical concerns in any other area of the world, for that matter. His domestic policies also sucked, and he was an all-around failure as a "leader". I arrive at that conclusion from having lived through his term in the driver's seat.

Brzezinski laid out the American global imperial strategy. He was the architect. This strategy is clearly available in his publications.

Oh.

I see.

Brzezinski makes the claim in his publications, so it MUST be so. Got it.

My mistake, then.

There is no one way to look at it. Obviously the perception will differ depending on where you come from.

Obviously.

If we followed the global mainstream media, we would believe that the bad guys of the month, as defined by the Pentagon in Washington DC, are out to invade the USA because they hate American freedoms. Doesn't matter if they are Nazis, Vietcong, Soviets, Russians, Iraqis, Libyans, Syria, Iran or abstract Islamic terrorists.

Quoting King George (Bush) II, and then attempting to apply his words to conflicts from before his time, gets you no points with me. Sure, he was an idiot, too - but I can't blame all of the lunacy from before his time ON him just because he was a dumb as a box of bricks, too.

The other side of the coin, for those who wish to pursue the deeper meaning of global events, shows far more connections and long-term strategy that no American president or liberal media will ever describe.

Of course it does...

What is going on in the Middle East now has been a long-time in the making. The Americans empowered anti-Soviet rebels, and the rebels won. Then the rebels moved on to creating their own regional hegemony which made them enemies of the USA.

Those anti-Soviet rebels couldn't even get their own country under control after the Soviet withdrawal due to the infighting, much less create a"regional hegemony" or gain enough strength to become enemies of the USA.

You seem to be thinking of the Taliban and the "Afghan Arabs", rather than the rebels.

originally posted by: Vovin

Not sure what confusion you are referring to. I never said that Brzezinski was ever even mentioned in Ghost Wars.

You didn't?

Whose post was this one then? In it. someone said:

Great book called "Ghost Wars" that details how Brzezinski (NSA) and the CIA turned ragtag mujahideen fighters into exceptional guerrilla fighters. They became stronger than their rivals and kept monopolizing various factions until they got to where they are today. The names have changed but essentially it's the same force, just expanded in terms of fighter strength, geography and scale of their goals.

that wasn't you? Did you loan out your keyboard or something?

In fact, I only ever read some of Ghost Wars. Back in early high school. I barely remember anything out of it, aside from accounts of clandestine CIA activities to support the mujahideen.

"Early high school"?

Ghost Wars was published in 2004, and you were apparently in "early high school" then, yet you presume to "correct" someone who actually LIVED the events it describes?

"Early high school" in 2004? How many "years in geopolitics" have you got under your belt again?

As for your photo analysis, it's probably true. Except there's no real way to know.

Sure there is. that way to know is called "archives", in which will be found the precise copy of the Washington Post from 4 February 1980, with the article and photo in it on page A19. Don't take my word for it, though - do the legwork yourself. Then you will know, rather than having to take someone else's word for it.

Obviously OBL was an American asset for some time.

How is it "obvious" that OBL was an American asset at all, much less "for some time"? Is it "obvious" to you because you take someone else's word for it, rather than doing the legwork on your own?

That kind of "obvious"? What makes you think that their word is any truer than mine? Because it supports the narrative you want it to support, without checking into it for yourself?

It's well known that the Pakistan/Afghan arbitrary border means little to the locals, and it would not be hard to assume that CIA assets would play dress up.

It doesn't, and they did. that in no way, however, suggests that OBL was one of them. Anyone can play dress up - I did:



Even THAT photo doesn't suggest that OBL was any sort of "American asset" - it only tells things about me, and has nothing to do with OBL.

The CIA and the Pakistani security service go back a long ways. But I have no proof either way because I was not there. All I know is that the original article that you reference could be fabricated news anyways. I've seen what the media can do during the Iraq war.

Ah.

I see.

You weren't there, and have no intention of letting anyone who was unplug the narrative you want to promote. Got it.

"Fabricated news"? If it was, then it was "fabricated" at the time, in February 1980, and was only later co-opted to try promoting the most outrageous line of BS I have ever run across on the internet. using an actual photo of the time, but deleting and suppressing the backstory behind it in order to promote an entirely new and fictitious story - revisionist history at it's finest.

People will believe whatever they want to believe,and when faced with proof to the contrary of their chosen belief, will often drag out the old canard of "fabricated!". That doesn't mean that it WAS fabricated, it only means that's what they want to believe, and want others to believe. Don't take my word for it - dig into the archives from the time yourself.

"The Truth shall set you free".