Would Someone Please Explain This S**t to Me?

[The Lone Liberal]

Taken from House of Saud, House of Bush….page 109-110

“Nor was that the only sign that the groundwork was being laid for a national security catastrophe. “In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high-level State Department officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants,” Michael Springman, the head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah from 1987 to 1989, told the BBC. “People with no ties to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained here in Washington to Main State, to the inspector general and to Diplomatic Security, and I was ignored.

What I was doing was giving visas to terrorists---recruited by the CIA and Osama bin Laden to come back to the United States for training to be used in the war in Afghanistan against the Soviets.”

The Blowback of the Reagan-Bush and Republican party policy was the WTTs going down on 9--11!

[keep_left]

1. That's correct, but it's even worse!

I have a recording of a hearing that Sen. (Rep?) Conyers hosted some years ago. The topic was the Gary Webb exposé of CIA involvement in the huge dope dealing of the '80s (which actually goes back a long way, probably to WWII--the Lucky Luciano/Mafia debacle). There was an individual, I forget his name, but he wrote a book called "Out of Afghanistan", and I believe he worked in intelligence during the Afghan operation. He was definitely in country for years, I'm sure of that. Anyway, he discusses, in his book and at the hearing, how he and others warned the CIA/DIA/etc. that they were building up terrorist elements of the Islamic resistance, that there was massive heroin dealing going on which financed terror, and so on. They were ignored, and the CIA officials simply pretended not to see bags of dope literally being loaded onto planes.

"Blowback" is a common theme in US history. In fact, that's the title of a couple of good books on the subject (one being about recruitment of Nazis, the other about more recent events).

[Beam Me Up]

2. Ruling criminal elites...

(sometimes in conjunction with elements within state controlled militaries) can afford to have their own private "armies" of covert operatives that are presented to us through the media they own or manipulate as "terrorists."

The BLOWBACK theory assumes that these "terrorists" ARE what the media portrays them to be; eg: independent of larger, global, agendas and players. Events like those described expose a small portion of a LIE that has very DEEP roots in our society, including the State Department.

/explanation

[keep_left]

3. You're (mostly) correct...

But some of this is the old problem of unintended consequences and "mission myopia" (I love that term). The fact that these groups are huge dope dealers, violent terrorists, etc. is unimportant when we recruit them. Apparently the intel people have an extremely rudimentary understanding of the complexity of the political situation, and it often comes back to bite the empire in the *ss. It's not like intelligence wants these things to happen, but it's not a high priority, especially when dope and arms deals and terror amplify the power of the mercenaries.

[The Lone Liberal]

5. They never look over the hill!

Tunnel vision always results in unintended consequence.

[Beam Me Up]

8. Our analyses differ.

The "criminals and dope dealers" I am speaking of ARE the elite families, banks and corporate enterprises they own and opperate. That their clandestine operatives engage in these activities is hardly an "unintended consequence".

Along those lines: http://www.whale.to/b/ruppert1.html

[keep_left]

9. Oh, I definitely agree with you there.

Don't want you to think I was picking a fight! Just that US intelligence agencies don't necessarily want all these bad things to happen; they just have the hubris to think that they can control it (e.g. Oliver North and the Medellin cartel, etc.). And they don't really care that much; one comment I heard about was that the dope dealing from the Afghan operation was just "fallout".

That is the essence of blowback: thinking that you can control criminals and terrorists, that you're too smart to be scammed by these people. Meanwhile they're using your supply lines to smuggle heroin, etc. That's why we likely have a coming sh*tstorm in Pakistan. The intelligence agents and generals are all heroin dealers in cahoots with al Qaeda.

[greatauntoftriplets]

4. Did the policy change after Clinton took office?

This appears to mean that these people had visas for a number of years.

[keep_left]

6. No, because there WAS no policy...

By then, it was too late. The US basically abandoned the Afghan op as soon as the Soviets left. The mujahedin had a saying: "first we kill the Russians, then we kill each other". A civil war broke out and the various balkanized groups tore the place to shreds. The Taliban were actually welcomed at the time as the law and order regime! And we know how that turned out. Meanwhile, bin Laden used the country as his base of operations because it was completely lawless in places, just like al Qaeda uses other lawless states such as Somalia.

[The Lone Liberal]

7. Who knows....I do know that Clinton

took on the Al Qaeda in Bosnia. One thing that is often overlooked by the Bush administration when they accuse Clinton of doing nothing on terrorism.