1873
1874

Anti-Soviet warrior puts his army on the road to peace (lewrockwell.com)

submitted ago by avengingturnip

top 200 commentsshow all 336
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]hadhad69 11 points12 points ago

Interesting that the road building was in Sudan where there is now a festering extremism.

[–]barlister 34 points35 points ago

If by festering extremism you mean genocide from 2003 to 2006 in Darfur (200,000 - 400,000 killed), decades of civil war, a recent secession (last year) of South Sudan from North Sudan and a budding war between the new nation of South Sudan and North Sudan, recent war with Chad (~5 years ago), and modern-day slavery of Sudanese by Sudanese, ok.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points ago

Don't forget oil rich land! That always = fun.

load more comments (8 replies)

    [–]BuckLongcut 2 points3 points ago

    Robert Fisk is also the origin of the verb, fisking

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking

    [–]herofix 23 points24 points ago

    Robert Fisk still writes for The Independent. Osama bin Laden notably singled him out as a properly 'neutral' journalist.

    Fisk conducted three interviews with Osama bin Laden, all published by The Independent. These took place on December 6, 1993; July 10, 1996; and March 22, 1997. During one of those interviews, bin Laden, who had taken a liking to Fisk, said: “Mr. Robert, one of our brothers had a dream. He dreamed ... that you were a spiritual person ... this means you are a true Muslim.” In a 2004 videotape, bin Laden praised Fisk as a "neutral" reporter who understood Islamist grievances.

    Fisk also interviewed such notables as Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Sadeq Khalkhali (the hanging judge of the Iranian revolution).

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1764

    [–]Khiva 0 points1 point ago

    Not really sure that's a point in Fisk's favor.

    [–]herofix 0 points1 point ago

    Nor am I.

    [–]IronAnvil 41 points42 points ago

    Everyone came from somewhere. Character is cultivated by your actions. No one wakes up one day and decides to work on a maniacal laugh and torture puppies. You take one step, then another, and suddenly unthinkable things don't seem like such a big deal anymore.

    [–]thephotoman 14 points15 points ago

    No one wakes up one day and decides to work on a maniacal laugh and torture puppies.

    Actually, I did that one morning in 2002.

    I got better before I encountered any puppies, though.

    [–]dmanww 0 points1 point ago

    How's the laugh coming along?

    [–]thephotoman 0 points1 point ago

    I'm still not that good at it.

    [–]WIDE_OPEN_BEAVERS 3 points4 points ago

    Like sandwiching peanut butter and nutella between two oreos.

    [–]cadencehz 2 points3 points ago

    Dude. Did you just make that up? Is that a thing? That's life changing.

    [–]muus 0 points1 point ago

    When you mean oreos, you obviously mean the double stuffed right?

    [–]WIDE_OPEN_BEAVERS 0 points1 point ago

    Anything but Hydrox

    [–]tag_all_the_things 0 points1 point ago

    Heathcliff did.

    [–]Nurgle 0 points1 point ago

    We talking Osama or Lew Rockwell?

    load more comments (2 replies)

      [–]alexgmcm 25 points26 points ago

      I guess he moved from construction to demolition.

      [–]angryfads 35 points36 points ago

      Blowback's a bitch.

      [–]bittermanscolon -5 points-4 points ago

      How do you like living in it?

      [–][deleted] 7 points8 points ago

      I remember reading the NYTimes articles in 1999 and 2000 all about the Taliban (who at the time were unknown to US citizens)

      I particularly remember the articles detailing the horrible treatment of woman.

      [–]acog 23 points24 points ago

      The first time I ever heard of the Taliban was when they destroyed ancient statues of Buddha in 2001.

      [–]ndougla2 4 points5 points ago

      wow, that makes me really sad to see...

      [–]bementar 2 points3 points ago

      Ditto - I remember reading that Time article. I'm not Buddhist (or religious) but that act really griped me.

      [–]11jplang11 0 points1 point ago

      Me too.

      [–]Tom_Zarek 10 points11 points ago

      Local boy makes good.

      [–]timdiggerm 14 points15 points ago

      In before Dark Knight quote about becoming the villain

      [–]_ingenuo_ 15 points16 points ago

      But you merely adopted the sand; I was born in it

      [–]originalone 6 points7 points ago

      I was born on Arrakis, but I rode the sand better than anyone before.

      [–]Aiskhulos 3 points4 points ago

      Pssh. Nice try Stiglar. We all know Maud'dib is the one in charge around here.

      [–]thephotoman 69 points70 points ago

      Yeah, a lot of people like to forget that we created Osama bin Laden.

      [–]coinsinmyrocket 183 points184 points ago

      If by "We" you mean the ISI and the Saudi Government, then yeah, you're right.

      If by "We" you mean the U.S./UK, well no. He was self-funded and had no direct contact with the CIA during his time as a fighter/fundraiser in the Soviet-Afghan War. You could definitely argue though that the US (along with many others) helped to create an environment where his actions were allowed to thrive and continue after the Soviets had withdrawn.

      EDIT: I'd recommend anyone interested on this to read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll and Charlie Wilson's War by George Crile III (the book, not the movie, it leaves many important details out).

      [–]R0xx0Rs-Mc0wNaGe 0 points1 point ago

      i coulda have sworn i read reliable stuff about the SAS and others helping train in afghainstan

      [–]coinsinmyrocket 2 points3 points ago

      In Afghanistan, no. At least officially. I'd wager it was highly unlikely as well since if the Soviets captured or found any dead NATO service members, it would be a huge issue that could have lead to a larger war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Not to mention the huge risk involved in placing soldiers in Afghanistan to simply train men when they could have just as easily trained fighters in Pakistan or other nearby countries since the border with Afghanistan was so porous.

      There were CIA Paramilitary forces helping to train fighters in Pakistan, some most undoubtedly former or current special forces members attached to the CIA for assignment, but none were in Afghanistan from everything I've seen and read. Still, it wouldn't surprise me if some report gets declassified 20 years from now that reveals we had limited special operations movements occurring within Afghanistan during the Soviet Occupation.

      Now China on the other hand...

      [–]CaptJax 4 points5 points ago

      2nd for Ghost Wars. Probably the most well-sourced book on the CIA's involvement in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the 70's and 80's.

      [–]JohnnyChurlish 8 points9 points ago

      Why not source some academic research?

      EDIT: See UC Berkeley Professor Peter Dale Scott's website http://www.peterdalescott.net for stringently researched argument's on how the U.S. funded/facilitated the rise of Islamic radicalism in Afghanistan and beyond via proxies with drugs distribution syndicates.

      [–]Atlai 21 points22 points ago

      I don't consider an English professor's personal website to be "academic research". Academic research is typically published in this thing called a "journal" where it is subject to "peer review".

      [–]eternalkerri 61 points62 points ago

      A Berkeley English professor who is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?

      ooooh, tell me more.

      [–]MMSTINGRAY 7 points8 points ago

      "how U.S. foreign policy since the 1960s has led to partial or total cover-ups of past domestic criminal acts, including, perhaps, the catastrophe of 9/11."

      I don't find that that hard to believe although 9/11 probably isn't one of those but he does only say "perhaps".

      [–]eternalkerri 0 points1 point ago

      This is where someone posts the .gif of the Ancient Aliens guy where he says, "Is it possible??? YES!"

      [–]Khiva 0 points1 point ago

      Saying "perhaps" the US government orchestrated and covered up 9/11 is on a par with saying "perhaps" space aliens invented the milkshake.

      [–]MMSTINGRAY 0 points1 point ago

      partial or total cover-ups of past domestic criminal acts

      It is saying that the US government could have covered up some aspects of the attack for foriegn policy reasons. That' different to them orchestrating and covering it all up. And from what I can tell the book is mainly about the US goverment covering up domestic criminal acts, not full-blown 9/11 conspiracy theories that the US government blew up the WTC.

      load more comments (9 replies)

        [–][deleted] 29 points30 points ago

        This dude is a poet and his books are published from some JFK assassination site.

        I'm not saying that proves he is wrong, but it sets of my "kook" alarm.

        [–]untaken-username 8 points9 points ago

        But it is wrong to refer to it as "academic research." I'm guessing his work is not being peer-reviewed by credible historians.

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

        Concurrence!

        [–]vanostran 1 point2 points ago

        I have no 'kook' alarm.

        [–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

        Is the guy a professor of poetry at a liberal school who publishes on conspiracy theory sites? He's a kook.

        Don't get me wrong, professors can have research interests outside of their area (Chomsky!), but this guy ain't.

        [–]IndianXC 0 points1 point ago

        It's funny how easily Chomsky sets off man people's kook alarm too, but having read some of his stuff it's hard to disagree with most of what he says.

        [–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

        I can't critique what he says directly, but it seems decently authoritative.

        [–]Ze_Carioca 1 point2 points ago

        My dad had an office next to his at MIT in the 80s.

        [–]IndianXC 0 points1 point ago

        Any cool stories?

        [–]Ze_Carioca 3 points4 points ago

        There was a smoking ban, but he would smoke in his office all the time and told MIT he would quit if hey prevented him from smoking. My dad said he was also kind of a jerk to everyone, and was really mean on his students. He never went into detail, professional courtesy, but my dad was not a huge fan.

        [–]coinsinmyrocket 14 points15 points ago

        I'm at my office right now, so unfortunately I'm not able to pull out any of my books/journals so I can't hand off more specific citations at the moment. The two books I mentioned both make it expediently clear (Coll's book more so), that our funding went to local mujahideen and was typically funneled through the ISI or occasionally the Saudi's Intelligence apparatus. Again, I highly recommend both, especially Ghost Wars as it is exhaustive and extremely readable.

        EDIT: I don't disagree with your source's argument (that the CIA threw money at warlords and caused more problems in Afghanistan. BTW a good read on the culture of dysfunctionalism at the CIA is Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner) and my original comment includes the notion that we did indeed ferment the environment in Afghanistan that allowed someone like Bin Laden to continue his jihadist activities after the Soviets withdrew. My disagreement is that the CIA directly funded and worked with Bin Laden during his time as a mujahideenin during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

        [–]heyblincoln 2 points3 points ago

        Professors who hate America and love the rest of the world are not hard to find.

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

        This dude is an English professor/poet.

        [–]CricketPinata 4 points5 points ago

        If anything that only supports his original statement.

        [–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

        I'm not sure if that is wittily saying it is academic research, or if it is wittily saying someone still needs to source it.

        [–]CricketPinata 1 point2 points ago

        No, I am saying I don't really hear tons of patriotic pro-American poetry coming out of the academic field for a reason.

        Because while Academia isn't really known for it's Patriotic/Pro-American bend, Poet/Professors definitely aren't.

        [–]cjackw 0 points1 point ago

        But he is Berkley! Surely that must make it harder?

        [–]cjackw -1 points0 points ago

        That still wouldn't make a connection to Osama himself.

        [–]pubestash -1 points0 points ago

        Michael Springman is a whistleblower who issued passports in saudi arabia at the time and he tells a different story

        [–]klobster -2 points-1 points ago

        I was under the impression that the Bin Laden family had long standing ties to the Bush family. I'm not saying that Bush used his time as head of the CIA to help his family friends, but There would definitely be some sort of contact there.

        [–][deleted] 15 points16 points ago

        Not really, at all. This is all conspiratorial hogwash that gets whispered and passed around like a game of chinese telephone.

        [–]coinsinmyrocket 2 points3 points ago

        IIRC, the Bush family and the Bin Laden family had connections through the Carlyle Group and other business connections. From what I've read, it wasn't really a strong personal connection or anything, just more of a case of both families investing strongly in the same companies.

        [–]cjackw 5 points6 points ago

        On top of that the Bin Laden family and Osama don't exactly get along.

        load more comments (7 replies)

          [–]Moarbrains 0 points1 point ago

          This is what you call a controversy. You have claims on both sides and no way to verify anyone's stories.

          All we know is that US assets were active in Afghanistan helping local fighters oppose the Soviet occupation and Bin Laden was also working with local forces during the occupation. At the very least he was an ally at one time.

          There has been so much propaganda on both sides by unreliable narrators and intentional obfuscation that we will never really know.

          load more comments (14 replies)

            [–]Gr8WhiteGrammarNazi 20 points21 points ago

            That's almost certainly not true. We funded the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen did not go on to form the Taliban OR Al Qaeda. Some of the Mujahideen turned into real sleazebag war criminals (Hekmatyar), but Mullah Omar was unaffiliated with them. Bin Ladin was affiliated with the Mujahideen, but as an "Afghan Arab" in Maktab al-Khidamat, and there's little evidence to suggest we actually supplied that organization with any state funding. The Pakis and Saudis took care of that.

            Our biggest failure was getting behind Hekmatyar. Massive mistake, fucked up Afghanistan and consequently the whole world because of it.

            The Taliban, though, is ENTIRELY on Pakistan's hands. From its very inception to this very day, Pakistan is behind every damn resurgence and power grab from those men.

            Now, even if some US money did get to Bin Ladin, which is a possibility, it still isn't that sinister. First of all, the US never trained anyone in Afghanistan. The ISI never allowed it. The US only provided funds and arms. Secondly, the stated goals of the Mujahideen were to reclaim Afghanistan from the Soviet invasion. Our funding would have been for that reason, not for Al Qaeda, which came later.

            But there's no real reason to suspect we did fund Maktab al-Khidamat. They were incredibly insignificant in the context of the wider Mujahideen movement, and they were nearly entirely independently funded through Bin Ladin's family and international donations. Oh yeah, and they were viciously hostile towards all Westerners throughout their time in Afghanistan.

            [–]kitatatsumi 20 points21 points ago

            Assuming "we" is USA, how did the USA create Osama Bin Laden?

            [–]JayTS 11 points12 points ago

            We armed him and the Taliban mujahideen to fight the Russians.

            EDIT - "Taliban" is struck through to show the edit. I thought it was the Taliban, I was wrong. It was the indigenous Afghan mujahideen we armed. The part about Bin Laden and the foreign Afghan mujahideen is conspiracy theory only.

            [–]kahirsch 43 points44 points ago

            The Taliban didn't even exist when the Afghans were fighting the Russians.

            We funded the Mujahideen. There's not really any good evidence that we funded Al Qaeda or bin Laden.

            [–]smashybashy 0 points1 point ago

            More specifically, these guys.

            load more comments (6 replies)

              [–]kitatatsumi 27 points28 points ago

              So arming someone to fight a mutual enemy equals creating them.

              The US armed the anti-German occuppation. So, according to your logic, the US created the French resistance.

              [–]Yukos 24 points25 points ago

              The USA only gets credit when it's a bad thing.

              [–]MakeEmSayAyy 1 point2 points ago

              And with this comment, all arguing can stop. Logic'd

              [–]Gr8WhiteGrammarNazi 10 points11 points ago

              Wrong. The Taliban wasn't around when the Soviets were.

              [–]JayTS -4 points-3 points ago

              You're right, it wasn't the Taliban. It was the mujahideen. I am not a middle eastern scholar, apologies for the confusion.

              [–]kitatatsumi 3 points4 points ago

              well then, i don't know, instead of editing, maybe you need to re-asses your opinions a bit.

              [–]kitatatsumi 4 points5 points ago

              The US also the Maquis, so according to that logic, the US also created modern France.

              [–][deleted] 6 points7 points ago

              the Maquis

              But the treaty with the Cardassians was horseshit! Betrayal of federation citizens by the Federation!

              [–]CUNTBERT_RAPINGTON 2 points3 points ago

              Modern France as we know it today? More or less, yeah.

              [–]cjackw 0 points1 point ago

              No the modern France of the ancient past.

              [–]CUNTBERT_RAPINGTON 0 points1 point ago

              The United States has had tremendous influence on France since the 18th century and possibly earlier.

              [–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

              We didn't.

              In 1979, Carter (that peacenik) started operation Sidewinder to funnel arms and money and training through Pakistan, which in turn created the situation for Bin Laden to enter himself into.

              [–]Askol -1 points0 points ago

              This explains it.

              [–]kitatatsumi 18 points19 points ago

              Ah, I see. The Mujahadeen really was not a grass roots oppossiton to a Soviet Dictatorship. There were not really 250,000 indegneous fighters. It really was just a CIA plot to overthrow a popular regime.

              Accoring to the article you linked:

              "It has been claimed..."

              If thats good enough for you, great.

              [–]Askol 5 points6 points ago

              I haven't read too much about this, and definitely don't know enough to have an opinion on the subject.

              I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with OP, I was just explaining what OP was referencing.

              [–]kitatatsumi 1 point2 points ago

              But you do realize you deliberately cited conjecture. Right?

              [–]Askol 0 points1 point ago

              I wasn't citing anything, I was just giving you a link which attempted to answer your question.

              The way you asked the question made it seem like you hadn't heard of this before, and considering there isn't any way to know the truth, this seemed like a good place to start. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with the article, but I think it explains the situation pretty well with little bias.

              [–]kitatatsumi -1 points0 points ago

              Fair enough.

              But, it was a horrible place to start and in the future, when attempting to answer someone's question, consider giving them fact, not conjecture. It will make it far more difficult for people to accuse you of bias.

              [–][deleted] 34 points35 points ago

              "In their desperation, they turned to a man they did not fully understand..."

              [–]julia-sets 8 points9 points ago

              A closer analogy would be if Batman created the Joker in order to take down the rest of the crime leaders of Gotham.

              [–]this_sort_of_thing 3 points4 points ago

              And it would have been a solid plan, if the Joker decided to leave Batman alone, you can't blame Batman for being attacked by an insane Joker who decided to attack Batman just because he didn't like him.

              I'm not sure why the Afghans felt the need to turn on the Americans and join forces with Islamic extremism and start to fight the West. Yes, the US armed them to fight the Soviets, but why does nobody question why the Afghans then turned on the US? Because the US then left the Afghans once the Soviets were gone? How is that reasoning to end up accommodating extremists like Bin Laden and starting up an entirely new war.

              At the end of the day, I don't believe the US created the War in Afghanistan. They could have thanked the US for helping them out against the Russians and then gone on their merry way. Instead they decided to have a civil war and then start hating the US for Islamic reasons.

              [–]spiderbait21 12 points13 points ago

              You do realize this wasn't the US funding some stable government to fight the Russians? They created numerous warlords that fought off the Russians and then spent the rest of their time fighting each other, murdering civilians and keeping their respective territory living in fear.

              You might be a bit confused about the civil war as well. A communist party seized power in a revolution, which sparked a civil war. The Pakistani and US and the Soviet Union then funded their respective sides. Eventually the communists lost. The USSR and the US left, but Saudi Arabia and Pakistan became players instead. Pakistan backed the ultra-fundamentalist Taliban and brought them to power. If the US had cared beyond getting rid of the Russians, they probably could have done something about it. But they don't care about injustice, just communism. So yes Afghanistan became a fundamentalist state, but it wasn't a problem for the US until you pissed off the Islam world.

              [–]this_sort_of_thing -2 points-1 points ago

              But you'd still have to lay the vast majority of the blame upon themselves, Pakistan and Saudi for fostering and eventually accepting fundamentalism. The way people talk about how the Afghans have a right to be annoyed at the US because they 'abandoned' them after the Soviets really grinds my gears. They were the ones that chose to go down a path of fundamentalism and then initiate a war against the US after the Soviets left.

              [–]spiderbait21 2 points3 points ago

              There's also that point: When did Afghanistan declare war against the US? I don't remember reading about that so could you enlighten me?

              [–]this_sort_of_thing 1 point2 points ago

              They didn't declare war, but the Taliban allowed the country to be used as a base of operations for many attacks towards the US. I know you're being intentionally stupid though so I'll just stop there.

              [–]spiderbait21 1 point2 points ago

              Actually I'm not. I haven't made it a point to educate myself on Afghanistan nor the war there besides a few glossing over so I'm missing some details. So was actually not aware if Afghanistan had declared war on the US at some point or not.

              Although I am not acting stupid I do believe that the US was wrong in declaring war on Afghanistan, that their former dealings with the country were reprehensible and that any excuse for doing so is flawed.

              Osama was found in Pakistan, no war going on with them. Why is that? Did the highest authority in Afghanistan condone the attacks or admit to hiding Al Qaeda? If not then how is it different from what so many members of the US government have spouted against so many?

              But I doubt we'll have any impact on each other's viewpoints so let's just drop it.

              [–]this_sort_of_thing 1 point2 points ago

              Osama was in Pakistan because he fled to there from Afghanistan. Neither US/NATO nor Pakistan made any serious efforts (and still don't) to secure the border so its pretty much a free zone over there. Especially back during the early days.

              [–]julia-sets 0 points1 point ago

              you can't blame Batman for being attacked by an insane Joker who decided to attack Batman just because he didn't like him.

              Yeah, you can, because he would've known that the Joker is just that: insane. It's why it's such a good analogy in a way.

              They could have thanked the US for helping them out against the Russians and then gone on their merry way

              No, because we left them with a country in shambles. Poverty like that is an excellent breeding ground for extreme thought and action. If we'd devoted a fraction of the money spent fighting the Soviets on rebuilding Afghanistan, the Talbian have had a much harder time gaining traction.

              But really, we were incredibly short-sighted in our conflict with the Soviet Union. In our haste to fight them, we created far worse enemies.

              [–]this_sort_of_thing 2 points3 points ago

              So it's the US fault that they were insane? It's the US fault that they decided to fight the US instead of rebuild their country, after the US helped them fight the Soviets?

              That kind of logic makes no sense whatsoever. We're not talking about a bunch of animals, we're talking about actual people. You can't just accept that they're insane idiots and leave it at that and just say it's Americas fault they're a bunch of lunatics.

              [–]Speculum 2 points3 points ago

              they decided to fight the US instead of rebuild their country, after the US helped them fight the Soviets?

              Last time I checked, the US started the war against Afghanistan and not vice versa.

              [–]this_sort_of_thing 4 points5 points ago

              Well obviously you didn't bother checking why...

              [–]DavidBowie89 1 point2 points ago

              You should probably check out the book Ghost Wars. Goes into great details about everyone's motivations involved in the scenario.

              [–]Tenure 0 points1 point ago

              Is that the book based on Call of Duty?

              [–][deleted] ago

              [deleted]

              [–]Sun-Wu-Kong 7 points8 points ago

              Official GCPD policy is to arrest the vigilante known as Batman on sight.

              [–]spiderbait21 -1 points0 points ago

              I'm quite sure that was the same policy for the US regarding some of the scum they were financing.

              [–]kavorka2 9 points10 points ago

              We didn't really create him -- if anything the Russians did. We were his friend and we helped him like we helped all the Afghan rebels fighting the Russians. We turned a blind eye to his religious dogma. He was anti-Russia, and that was all that mattered to us. But he became a leader because of his family's money, and we certainly didn't give him that.

              [–]Lightfoot1678 3 points4 points ago

              We also promised aide after the fighting, which is why many of the Afghans fought the Soviets to begin with. After the fighting, our promised aide never came.

              [–][deleted] 9 points10 points ago

              which is why many of the Afghans fought the Soviets to begin with.

              Instead of, say, occupation of their homeland?

              [–]acog 3 points4 points ago

              He was anti-Russia, and that was all that mattered to us.

              This is a good time to remind people that the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is naive horseshit. Similar mistakes were very recently made in Libya.

              [–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

              Well, it worked for us to take down Germany in Japan in WW2. And it worked for us to take down the Soviets in the Cold War.

              There will be blowback, but are you saying its better to be so rigid ideologically we cannot exercise our full might? I don't.

              [–]acog 2 points3 points ago

              No, France and England were genuine allies. There's a huge difference. We never had any illusions about the Soviets, either. It was an alliance of necessity but that's all. We immediately went from allies to enemies once the German threat was taken care of.

              Just look today at Syria. We want democracy and we want a Syria free of influence from Iran. So should we support the Syrian rebels? Will they be filled with gratitude toward us if we do? Hell no.

              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

              It was an alliance of necessity

              Bingo.

              So should we support the Syrian rebels?

              Do we?

              [–]groovegod 0 points1 point ago

              Have you RES tagged as "Globalist Scum" but I have no idea why...

              [–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

              Interesting. My views I have on Reddit are usually conservative, anti-communist, pro-seduction, and anti-the newest James Bond film.

              [–]pumpkincat 1 point2 points ago

              I now have you tagged as "hates bond".

              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

              Woah, I love Bond, but found the new film hewed too closely to Dark Knight to fully love.

              [–]groovegod 0 points1 point ago

              Well, at least you know where you stand. Also, pro-seduction?

              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

              Many dislike that subreddit and the ideas behind it because they view it as trickery or deceit. I think it encourages men to become what women naturally want them to be, confident and daring.

              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

              He was anti-Russia, and that was all that mattered to us.

              Mattered to us? He didn't matter to us. We had no contact. We merely created the scenario in which Muslim money and arms could go into Afghanistan.

              [–]SargonOfAkkad 3 points4 points ago

              Seems odd that someone we "created" would hate us so much. You'd think he'd be thankful for all the weapons and training we provided to the mujahideen to help defeat the soviets.

              [–]thephotoman 0 points1 point ago

              We created him, but that doesn't make him ours. People are funny: you can help them, but that doesn't mean that they'll like you.

              [–]SargonOfAkkad -1 points0 points ago

              Usually when you help someone out they don't respond by attacking you.

              [–]thephotoman -1 points0 points ago

              And bin Laden can say pretty much the same thing about us.

              [–]Aegean 2 points3 points ago

              Fictitious & empty MSNBC talking point #4,301

              [–]BagDaddy 3 points4 points ago

              I wonder if the great Robert Fisk regrets this?

              [–]sexrobot_sexrobot 8 points9 points ago

              Journalists don't get to write the headlines. If you read the article it is a lot more informational and mostly includes Osama bin Laden denying that he is backing extremists in Algeria or elsewhere. I don't see anything there to regret.

              [–]BagDaddy 0 points1 point ago

              I read the article and i love Robert Fisk, his books on the Lebanon are second to none. I was just wondering if he regretted this after 9/11

              [–]sexrobot_sexrobot 0 points1 point ago

              I would doubt that he regrets it. I'm sure he's interviewed far more destructive people that Osama bin Laden. It's part of his job.

              The unfortunate part is the headline frames the article poorly.

              [–]BagDaddy 0 points1 point ago

              True dat, the article was somewhat fawning over OBL. I used to love his interviews with Michel Aoun (christian militia leader in Lebanon) whom he didn't trust one iota because he was backed by Saddam (to troll the Syrians)

              [–]RealDollNipSlip 1 point2 points ago

              The enemy of my enemy is my friend

              [–]3idvet 5 points6 points ago

              Could not even wait an hour to repost this?

              title comnts points age /r/
              Anti-Soviet warrior 2coms 9pts 4hrs pics
              How times have changed! 33coms 240pts 3mos conspiracy
              How the world used to see Bin Laden. 104coms 389pts 3mos WTF
              good guy osama?! newspaper article from 1993 37coms 70pts 2mos pics
              Anti-Soviet Warrior Puts His Army on the Road to Peace. Article by Robert Fisk, December 1993 on Osama Bin Laden 19coms 78pts 3mos conspiracy
              AMA Request: Robert Fisk of the 1993 Bin Laden Interview 19coms 72pts 3mos AMA
              My parents gave me copies of every Newspaper from the day I was born, In one of them was this article on "Anti-Soviet warrior" Osama Bin Laden. 380coms 2104pts 3mos pics
              Found this interesting... Osama 1993 8coms 45pts 1mo pics

              [–]ramonycajones 1 point2 points ago

              *Cross-post. Very different. I feel like it's fair to assume that there may not be as much overlap between subscribers to /r/history and /r/pics, /r/conspiracy, /r/WTF or /r/AMA.

              [–]sudosandwich3 1 point2 points ago

              Based on the points the recent submissions have compared to this one, and this being the first time it is posted in /r/history I'd say it was a good repost.

              [–]3idvet 0 points1 point ago

              So that means no matter the time frame and even if it hits the front page via 2 subs. I can repost it within an hour due to the points. So that basically means that you could care less about OC that everyone bitches about not enough being on here. and waste time with repost's because they did well the first time round.

              [–]sudosandwich3 1 point2 points ago

              Judging by the point values from your links, it last hit the front page 3 months ago on 3 different subreddits, none of which were /r/history . That is a decent amount of time for a repost.

              Also this post is the original. It was posted an hour before the first /r/pics post in your chart. Polaris2 said in the comments of that thread that he got it from this subreddit.

              [–]chingyduster 4 points5 points ago

              Remember: It's only "Terrorism" if it's committed against a first world country.

              [–]ramonycajones 1 point2 points ago

              I feel like terrorism in India is covered prominently enough that obviously nobody thinks that.

              [–]Jaxonz 0 points1 point ago

              Well thats awkward...

              [–]caferrell -1 points0 points ago

              US State Dept. and CIA types watched Arabs congregate in Pakistan to fight and die against the Soviets in order to overturn the infidel conquest of a Muslim country and mistreatment of Muslims.

              Did any of those shining lights from Langley and Foggy Bottom ever ponder: hmm, I wonder if these Arab guys would be equally upset if the USA conquered Muslim countries and mistreated Muslims?

              Edit - punctuation

              [–][deleted] 12 points13 points ago

              conquered Muslim countries

              If by "conquered" you mean "had bases in Saudi Arabia the Saudi's approved of and gave money to Israel". This was 2001, before Afghanistan and Iraq.

              [–]R0xx0Rs-Mc0wNaGe 1 point2 points ago

              youre forgetting stuff like mossadegh and the shit caused in iran. helping saddam get in power. playing both sides during the iran iraq war. telling sadam it was ok to invade kuwait etc etc etc etc etc

              [–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

              Correct. Still not the same as "conquered".

              [–]anarchistica 1 point2 points ago

              Actually, the US helped Saddam's uncle into power, though of course they did keep him in power when he fought Iran and after GW1.

              [–]R0xx0Rs-Mc0wNaGe 0 points1 point ago

              do you mean general baak? (sp?) not sure he was his uncle. anyway, it gets confusing, but the CIA helped both gain and retain power in different ways at different times.

              load more comments (8 replies)

                [–]_ingenuo_ 5 points6 points ago

                Why aren't they invading Israel right now?

                [–]caferrell 2 points3 points ago

                Very tight security. Arabs can't get into Israel.

                [–]GeneralissimoFranco -2 points-1 points ago

                I'm surprised that this was published after the 1993 WTC Bombing. I guess Bin Laden wasn't linked with that until much later.

                edit: After reading comments and looking back, I guess Bin Laden never was part of 1993. I sorta just assumed.

                [–]vbullinger 10 points11 points ago

                Huh? I'm aware of no connection at all.

                [–]LaszloK 8 points9 points ago

                The link between 1993 and 2001 is Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, not Bin Laden.

                [–]CoolWeasel 1 point2 points ago

                Geez, that was chilling to read. His smile is so genuine. Was bin Laden always planning on terrorizing, or did something change?

                [–][deleted] 5 points6 points ago

                I'm currently reading the book 'the looming tower' and the impression I get is that he didn't believe in terrorism till the takfirs started influencing him.

                He smile is genuine because he is genuinely happy.

                [–]CoolWeasel 1 point2 points ago

                That seems likely. I am the person I am today because of each little decision I made and step I took. Though I am wholly a different person now than I was 5 years ago, it certainly didn't happen overnight.

                [–]baoanhdaica 0 points1 point ago

                what was he doing in Sudan?

                [–]thephotoman 1 point2 points ago

                Bin Laden spent a good chunk of the 80's in Sudan, actually. After the Soviets left, he had little to do in Afghanistan. Thus, he went where the Islamic world was having its next conflict.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

                Didn't he get thrown out?

                [–]pumpkincat 1 point2 points ago

                History can be a spiteful bitch.

                [–]dslicex 0 points1 point ago

                Hardly what I expected

                [–]BuckLongcut -1 points0 points ago

                The term fisking comes to mind. Robert Fisk, one of Bin Laden's useful idiots.

                [–]Roderick111 -1 points0 points ago

                The article was written in 1993.

                Just remember, hindsight is 20/20.

                Hell, if the US hadn't interfered in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, 9/11 would never have happened.

                [–]Tori23 0 points1 point ago

                not sure if I should downvote or upvote...

                [–]mypetridish 0 points1 point ago

                Did he really do 9/11?

                The US was the one who said he did. ANd he admited it, but probably to look like a badass, you know he was afterall the biggest terrorist out there at one point.

                [–]redcons2 1 point2 points ago

                On the road again..

                [–]jtt123 0 points1 point ago

                In the article it says how he remembers a mortar landing close to him and not exploding; I wonder what today would be like if it had

                [–]lupulusmaximus 0 points1 point ago

                'you have asked more than enough questions'

                [–]thesorrow312 0 points1 point ago

                Interesting to see how we went from anti soviet freedom fighter, fighting the good fight, to #1 worlds enemy islamo-fascist. All about perspective.

                load more comments (20 replies)