President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al-Qaeda Now in Afghanistan

[kpete]

Source: ABC

President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al-Qaeda Now in Afghanistan
With New Surge, One Thousand U.S. Soldiers and $300 Million for Every One al-Qaeda Fighter
By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS
Dec. 2, 2009

As he justified sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion a year, President Barack Obama's description Tuesday of the al-Qaeda "cancer" in that country left out one key fact: U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al-Qaeda fighters in the entire country.

A senior U.S. intelligence official told ABCNews.com the approximate estimate of 100 al-Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence agencies and the Defense Department. The relatively small number was part of the intelligence passed on to the White House as President Obama conducted his deliberations.

President Obama made only a vague reference to the size of the al-Qaeda presence in his speech at West Point, when he said, "al-Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same number as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border."

A spokesperson at the White House's National Security Council, Chris Hensman, said he could not comment on intelligence matters.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. What about the Taliban?

THOSE fuckers richly deserve to be whacked.

[mike_c]

3. it's a war crime to whack people just because we think they "deserve" it....

The west's hatred for islamic fundamentalists is completely irrelevant. Only an emperor goes around killing people just because they don't fit into his plans for empire.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. We did not Whack the Taliban. They refused to turn Bin Laden over after the U.S. and UN demanded

Now, if we sent Guido Sourdouche to deliver a fish wrapped in paper to the Taliban, that would have been Whacked, and an unprovoked whacking would have violated U.S. law.

[EFerrari]

14. They offered to turn him over to a third party. The torture president refused. n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

18. They did not turn him over when demanded by the U.S. and UN.

What they did was silmply continue to negotiate in bad faith.

And, they were still not whacked.

[EFerrari]

27. They did not turn him over to us, that's true.

[Roland99]

17. They requested evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks. wow. the nerve.

It should have taken about 3 seconds to fax that over. The Taliban offered 3 separate solutions involving turning him over to Pakistan, trying him in Afghanistan, or sending him to a 3rd-party.

But then the PNAC and Bush wouldn't have had their glory moments.



Then there's the whole Tora Bora mess.

[Ozymanithrax]

19. They still refused to turn him over to the U.S. and UN as required by the UN Charter.

Yes, it was quite cheaky of the US and UN to demand a suspected mass murderer and a suspected war criminal be turned over. They did not comply.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

36. so if Iran demands that you turn Kooch over to them, then the US should do so without evidence?

[pjt7]

12. who cares about the taliban?

that's not our responsibilty.

keep some special forces in to whack al-quaeda in paki & aghani, & give some money & support to afghan people & get 100,000 soliers OUT OF THERE.

[tekisui]

2. You can only sell a war on FEAR.

[shotten99]

4. I don't think he hid the fact that the main agenda was the Taliban.

Keep it up. We'll get the neo-cons back.

[theoldman]

5. This is a very misleading post.

Are we to assume that we are only fighting 100 guys? Al Qaida has a lot more members all over the world. The idea is to kill off the leadership and that is a lot less than 100.

[Ignis]

28. ...And which is not in Afghanistan any longer. (nt)

[No Elephants]

34. The number of Al Q'aeeda in Afghanistan is quite relevant to a discussion about sending troops to

Afghanistan. The number of Al Q'aeeda all over the world would be more relevant to a discussion of sending troops all over the world.

There is no evidence the leadership of Al Q'aeeda is in Afghanistan now. I don't think it's been there in years, since Osama evaded our troops at Tora Bora.

[elocs]

6. Shhhhhhh....loose lips sink ships. n/t

[cowcommander]

7. Next stop - Pakistan

The writing's on the wall.

[theoldman]

8. Of course we will bomb some areas of Pakistan.

However we will not wage a war against Pakistan.

[cowcommander]

21. If Obama truly means what he says to end the conflict

then the war will inevitably spill over there. The Taliban have been using the lawless mountain regions for years, and the only way to actually "finish the job" would be to put ground troops there as well.

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. He keeps ramping up this up to take his stand against "Radical Islam"

It's the crusade of 2010.

[MNDemNY]

11. But they are REALLY bad.

So bad , in fact, that it is well worth billions to reduce their numbers by 30%. Then we can claim VICTORY and leave tall, and proud! USA USA USA USA !!!!!!!!!!

[nonationbuilding]

13. Instead of spending $300 Million to kill each al-Qaeda, just offer them $30 Million to leave

Better yet, offer a $30 Million dead-or-alive bounty on each and let the Afghan people hunt them down

[The Stranger]

24. That's too easy. Besides the Neocons will come up with something -- AQ won't accept money.

They have super powers and mental telepathy. Ironically, the Neocons make them out to be so sub-human as to be almost super human. It is a bizarre phenomenon.

[No Elephants]

35. Bounty, yes. The U.S.directly financing Al Q'aeeda, no.

[izquierdista]

15. Harder to find

That's why he needs more troops there looking for them! :crazy:

[Flaneur]

16. Al Qaeda has won. They've made us bleed ourselves silly.

Hmmm, kind of like what happened to the Russians somewhere. Where was that now?

[defendandprotect]

39. No --

See my post #138 below . . .

US/CIA created the Taliban/Al Qaeda -- just as they created the violent Islamic movement

in Middle East -- using religion repeatedly as a tool. And nothing new in that!


Right wing here also created our own fanatical right wing religious movement --

GOP gave start up funds for the Christian Coalition in the 80's --

Scaife and other wealthy Repugs funded Dobson's organization and Bauer's organization.

It's all astro-turf!

[alfredo]

20. It's not a secret, we've known that number for a long time.

[bc3000]

22. 100 terrorists can do a lot of damage.

[defendandprotect]

40. Kinda reminds me of the damage 19 "hijackers" did against NORAD . . .

Oh, yeah -- !!!

:eyes:

:rofl:

[The Stranger]

23. Interesting that ABC "News" didn't report on intelligence before the War Criminals invaded Iraq.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

25. So at 3,000 to 1....

we should be able to kick their ass and be home in about 18 months.

[defendandprotect]

41. Humorous isn't it -- except it's so sad in its lies and in the damage it does . . . !!!

:eyes:

[WhiteTara]

26. al-Qaeda=All CIA, Duh n/t

[cosmicone]

29. Don't forget that Pakistan itself is a terrorist nation and

has thousands of active duty military plus ISI trained as terrorists who can be activated any second.

The Al Q'aida were 95% Pakistani anyway -- they were just moved from one column to the other.

[midnight]

30. National security risk to send over 30,000 troops for 100 bad guys....

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

32. One more time: US/CIA created the Taliban/Al Qaeda and used it the first time . . .

"to bait the Russians into Afghanistan . . . in hopes of giving them a Vietnam type

experience" --

We're dealing with a ton of false reality, folks -- !!

[boppers]

33. Close... the chronology is wrong.

1. Afghanistan went leftist-socialist in a coup.
2. The USSR supported them, and sent in troops to crush the pagan/religious folks who resisted.
3. The US decided to support the pagan/religious folks, and take the fight there.

[defendandprotect]

38. No -- US/CIA created Taliban/Al Qaeda - see Carter Administration . . .

While Carter was taking us out of the Olympics, this is what had really been going on --

We not only created the Taliban/Al Qaeda, but we also created the violent Islamic religous

movement in Middle East --

Religion has long been a tool of imperialistic government --

Here ya go --




FIRST PART OF THIS DEALS WITH HOW US/CIA CREATED TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA . . .
TO BAIT RUSSIANS INTO AFGHANISTAN . . .!!!


SECOND PART DEALS WITH THE TEXTBOOKS --

You can find confirmation of the first part of this in Brzezinski's book --
and he repeated this on the O'Reilly Show about 3 years ago -- and elsewhere since then . . .

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_i... ...


---------------------------------------------------

SECOND PART --


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.h...



Needless to say, the GOP also gave start up funding to the Christian Coalition in the 1980's and

other wealthy right wingers -- Scaife, etal -- gave start up funding to Dobson's organization --

and to Bauer's.

In other words, it's all astroturf planted by the right wing --

[boppers]

42. Thanks for the info!

"July 3, 1979 ...President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents"

The jihadist opponents apparently existed before there was any secret aid (so it's arguable whether we "created" them, or "funded what was already there", 15 months after the May 1, 1978 coup), but I did not know that we were funding them *before* the USSR invasion.

Again, many thanks!

[defendandprotect]

43. US/CIA financed creation of Taliban/Al Qaeda thru ISI Pakistan . . .

AND we financed Taliban/Al Qaeda right up to 9/11 . . .

and who knows what we've done since?

You'll find that information just about everywhere -- including Sybil Edmonds.


As Brzenzski tells it, we went into Afghanistan 6 months BEFORE the Russians came in . . .

in order to "BAIT" the Russians into Afghanistan . . .

Al Qaeda was an old fascist organization which the NAZI's took over and after WWII, passed

it on to the CIA. It was merely resurrected for the cause of once again using religion as

a political tool.


And, when you absorb the info on our also creating the VIOLENT Islamic movement in the Middle

East, keep in mind that the right wing here also financed the right wing religious movement in

America we are suffering from! GOP gave start up funds in the 1980's to the Christian Coalition --

and other wealthy right wingers -- Scaife, for one -- financed Dobson's organization and

Bauer's organization.

Like the myriad numbers of right wing think tanks these right wingers created to influence American

politics, all of this is faked -- as FreedWorks/tea baggers was faked.

Only on a much larger scale!!




:)

[boppers]

44. So the Nazi's created them, not the CIA?

Perhaps I'm missing your point.