Proof that "Al Qaeda in Iraq" were armed by the US? (VIDEO)

Yeah, I heard the same thing about firearm longtivity. These are new FACT These are non middle-eastern FACT These were supplied by a western arms manufacturer. LOGICAL CONCLUSION.

reply to post by the_love_revolution


Yeah, I think when you add all of the facts to the circumstantial evidence, such as the huge strategic blunder that the existence of this group would be to the insurgency and the huge strategic advantage for the west, it becomes more than logical to assume that this group was armed, trained and supplied by the west.

--airspoon

Whos to say this is a full length video, what happens after the video stops, perhaps the masked gunmen dont want to show themselves showing him how to use the weapon properly as it might give them away that they are familiar with the weapons and could possibly be from a western government agency.

At the time of this video of guessin he was a prime target for the US, so why is he unmasked and yet the gunmen behind him are all covered up

As i said before .. these are just my thoughts

Further more .. the guy at the end with the cream top and dark trousers (pants for your americans ) just seems a little out of place .. i dont know if its me. Just the way he holds his weapons the way he walks and the way he is built body wise. I think my brain is just on over time.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by ThePeaceMaker]

reply to post by ThePeaceMaker


Well, he wasn't even begininng to fire that thing correctly. A special forces team tasked with training him, would have most likely stepped in and corrected, rather than letting him continue to fire it in that way. With that being said, I guess anything is possible and at the end of the day, I can only give you my 2 cents. The goal of this post was to present evidence, connect my own dots with that evidence and let the readers connect theirs. You certainly found something that I didn't even think of.

--airspoon

No no all well and good i wasnt questioning your or anything, same as your id like to throw my two cents out there. What is the correct way of firing that gun he has, i see him firing from the hip but then is another shot he is firing from the shoulder.

reply to post by ThePeaceMaker


The correct way to fire it, depending on your intended role, would be to fire off quick successive bursts. Also, it can be fired from the hip, shoulder or supported by a bipod, with more emphasis on the latter two. The purpose of the weapon is to suppress the enemy through a large volume of fire, however the barrel gets very hot, very fast so you don't want to just lay on the trigger. You'll go through far too many barrels that way and although barrels can be changed rather quickly, it becomes a hindrance on the battlefield to do so. Just to note, the SAW can also double as an assault rifle due to its portability and accuracy.

--airspoon

Excellent Thread Airspoon. I have been watching your threads over the last couple of days. I added you to my friend list!

anyways, Yes, this is true, we armed the mujadeen in their fight against the USSR. And im sure those murky dark channels still exist.

I've posted this many times.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f9423390ce91.jpg[/atsimg]

this is zbignew Brzinksi ( I dont feel like spell checking his name).
And he is talking with none other than Osama bin Laden. This is the man that is responsible for arming his group back then!

Also, lets not forget, zbigniew is one of Obamas main mentors!

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.rense.com...

reply to post by VonDoomen


Thanks for the info, buddy. Yes, the US government's history of arming various groups, even our alleged enemies, is long and well known. Of course those channels are still there and even new ones forged. This is how TPTB push their agenda forward, by creating the boogy man and manipulating the people into not only funding more weapons and resource purchases, but wars too. They also manipulate us into giving them more power over ourselves at the same time.

I don't see how anyone can look at a video of our supposed enemy, doing a weapons demonstration with an apparent new cache of US made weapons, and not automatically put two and two together. The only thing that gets me here, is that the US doesn't only arm our "enemies" with US made weapons, but they also arm our "enemies" with Russian made weapons or whatever weapons are abundant in the region in question.

I can only assume that we armed the Mujahedeen with Russian made weapons because we had no logistical chain to supply the ammo, parts and training, at that time. Because we already had a massive presence in Iraq before this group showed up on the scene, it could give us a clue as to why they were supplied with US weapons as opposed to Russian weapons.

--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


Yes sir mister almighty all knowing expert on everything sir. You dont make a single point all you have is your theories which in your logic everyone else's theories and input is wrong so in my eyes you hold no water at all. But as we can all see you must own this thread and were dont with it have a good one.....sir

reply to post by FrancoUn-American


I'm not saying that my theory is anything other than just that, a theory, however if you want to poke holes in the theory, you have to do so with points that make sense. You can't claim to debunk a theory based on a false perception of how things really are. Sure, sometimes you throw a debunking theory out there that sometimes gets debunked, but to continue at that debunked theory is pointless.

--airspoon

reply to post by VonDoomen


How do you know that this is Bin Laden in the picture? That appears to be a Pakistani or even Indian military uniform, though I'm not so sure what their uniforms would have looked like back then. Do you have a source for that photo? With that being said, I don't think it's disputed that the US funded and armed Bin Laden during the Soviet war for Afghanistan, though that would be a powerful picture if true.

--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by VonDoomen

 

How do you know that this is Bin Laden in the picture? That appears to be a Pakistani or even Indian military uniform, though I'm not so sure what their uniforms would have looked like back then. Do you have a source for that photo? With that being said, I don't think it's disputed that the US funded and armed Bin Laden during the Soviet war for Afghanistan, though that would be a powerful picture if true.

--airspoon

The US armed what was then the Mujahadeen, a loose alliance of all the anti Soviet Afghanis. Some went on to later be the Taliban, some went on to later be the North Alliance. Just because Bin Laden took part in that as a fund raiser and "quartermaster", is not the same as the US arming him personally. He was much of a fighter, nor was he the face of the anti soviet resistance. He was not even well known until well afterwards.

And there are lots of US made weapons out there. There are probably millions of M-16/AR-15s out there, that does not mean the US government personally gave them out to whoever is in current possession. Sometimes governments fall, sometimes armies lose battles, sometimes corrupt soldiers sell weapons. Lots of ways for weapons to make their way out there.

Look at all the Soviet weapons the US acquired. Does that mean the Kremlin Russian Government handed them right over to the US?

And its not the US Government that makes these weapons, they are privately made and can be exported with permission. North Korea has MD-500 helicopters, other governments have gotten ahold of US weapons too. And the M249 is derived from a Belgian made gun too by FN.

You started at step A, but then arrived at D, but skipped B and C. I know its fashionable in conspiracy circles to come up with some idea without any proof and then state that its others responsibity to disprove you when you didnt prove your own ideas...But there is a sucb thing as having your own proof, and also Occams Razor.


[edit on 5-8-2010 by firepilot]

reply to post by firepilot


The Taliban nor the Northern Alliance was formed out of the Afghani mujahedeen. Did some mujahedeen fighters join those organizations? Sure, but again, they weren't formed out of the Afghani mujahedeen. For the purposes of this argument, you have to distinguish between the Afghani "Persians" and the Arabs who descended on Afghanistan to help fight the Soviets. This distinction will become more important further down in the post.

After the liberation of Afghanistan from the communists, the mujahedeen broke up and started to fight each other in the Afghani Civil War. There was no clear winner of this civil war, as it still has not yet been declared over by those who count.

Furthermore, the remnants of the mujahedeen formed the Islamic State of Afghanistan in 1992 after the fall of the communists and when the Taliban took control over the capital, Kabul, in 1996, the Islamic State of Afghanistan formed the Northern Alliance, an umbrella origination of several different groups who were fighting each other. The purpose was to refocus their efforts on the then growing threat of the Taliban.

The Taliban took control over the majority of the country in 1996, with their main opposition being the Northern Alliance, who held almost 12 percent of the country to the north, thus the meat of the latter part of the civil war.

As far as whether the US deliberately funded the Arabs in Afghanistan, it is believed that Osama Bin Laden was a conduit for money and weapons coming from Saudi Arabia, a nation that helped the US with funding and arming the Soviet resistance. While the official position of the CIA is that it did not intentionally or deliberately fund the Arabs fighting the Soviets and that this falls on the shoulders of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI), it is hard to believe that the US just blindly gave this funding to the ISI without knowing the details or directing its flow.

The Arabs played a huge role in the liberation of Afghanistan from the intervening Soviets, so it would only be logical that both the US and Pakistan would want to direct money where it would be most effective. It would also seem logical that the US and Saudi Arabia would coordinate their efforts in directing this resistance, which would put their relationship and knowledge of Bin Laden's role in the effort, almost certain.

Then we look at George H.W. Bush, who was Vice President at the time, after just coming from the CIA, where he was the Director. It is not really disputed that the Bush Family has close ties with both the Saudi Royal Family and the Bin Laden Family. We can make an easy and very plausible assumption that Bush kept some influence over the CIA as Vice President, especially after a long career with the organization and since the CIA was handling the funding of the Afghan resistance to the Soviet Union, it isn't that far of a jump to assume that the US government, particularly the CIA, was funding Osama Bin Laden, a member of the Bin Laden family, to which the Vice President and former Director of the CIA had close ties to his family. It would only seem logical that Bin Laden was a liaison between the CIA and the mujahedeen.

If it's only a coincidence, it's an extreme coincidence. Lets take a look at it for a moment.

We have the Vice President of the US, who also happened to be the former Director of the CIA, with close ties to the Bin Laden Family and the Saudi Royal family.

We have the CIA funding the mujahedeen in Afghanistan.

We have the Saudi Royal family funding the mujahedeen in Afghanistan.

We have a member of the Bin Laden family fundraising and channeling money to the mujahedeen and who also happened to be a member of the mujahedeen.

Why would Bid Laden or his supporters not reach out to the US government, a government being topped by Bush, a close friend, ally and business partner of the Bin Laden family?

Why would Bush or the CIA not reach out to Bin Laden, who was looking to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, especially seeing that Bush had a good relationship with the Bin Ladens?

Although none of us will really ever know for sure, it isn't a far leap to suggest that Bin Laden was a liaison, or an "inside-man" for the CIA and US government in their proxy-war against the Soviets. In fact, it wouldn't even seem so far-fetched that the Arabs fought in Afghanistan at the behest of the American government.

--airspoon

 

Sources:

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.america.gov...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

But do you have evidence, or is it just speculation? Speculation is not evidence of anything.
Just putting unrelated things together is just like throwing stuff at a wall, hoping something sticks.

I guess you could make the case that the USAF had ties to the Bin Laden family too, since the Bin Laden group probably constructed facilities used by the USAF. Heck you could draw a conclusion that I am tied to the Bin Ladens, since I have flown in Saudi Arabia and probably drove on roads or flown out of airfields built by the Bin Ladens. You can tie almost anything to the Bin ladens with a few degrees of seperation, since it more of a clan than a family with thousands of members, and is a very wealthy family from all of its construction dealings in the Kingdom

There was no reason the CIA would have to have gone through Saudis to fund anything, thats just an extra step when they were able to give the Afghanis the weapons directly through Pakistan. Osama was not some big player back then, like some conspiracy types make out.

reply to post by firepilot


So goes the cliche saying, "Absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence." I must ask, do you have evidence to the contrary? Where is your evidence to suggest otherwise?

In fact, we could say that our knowledge of an expanding universe is just speculation, though we hold it to be true, based on the evidence that we do have.


--airspoon