Actually, Al-Qaeda were responsible for the establishment of the CIA in the US. Easy to get those confused.

Vaft wins the thread. Flawless Victory.

Vaft win

Al Qaeda was founded and funded by Saudis during the jihad against the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan. Its purpose was to train, equip, and supply the thousands of Arabs volunteering to fight the communists. American aid was all funneled through the Pakistanis, who supported their favorite native Afghan resistance groups. al Qaeda was not founded or funded by the CIA, although it probably bought American weapons and supplies from the Pakistanis and the Afghans the CIA supported from time to time.

The answer going in the history books is 'no'.

I was under the impression that the CIA had trained the mujahideen(literally 'those who struggle for God'), including individuals like Osama Bin Laden; who were opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Whatever intermediares the CIA happened to use; Al queada was only formed after ('88 according to wikiality)

It has been a longstanding policy of many US administrations and agencies to further US power and influence, so it is not surprising the they supported any muslim who was willing to fight against the soviets, seen at the time as a much greater threat (of course getting to a point when US troops would invade Afghanistan and replace the USSR as the infidel occupying a muslim country was unimaginable at the time)

The US also supported Saddam and basically paid him to invade Iran (after the islamic revolution there removed the pro-US Shah (king) - the Iran-Iraq war was a particularily bloody one, where the US sponsored Iraqii army (wepl US money used to buy US weapons) fought the far more numerous Iranian army (who had less advanced weapons, and you can see from them having about twice the causilties)

The Iranians of course lay down their lives for the Islamic cause... As i'm sure you can imagine American boys would lay down their lives if a neighbouring country attacked and threatened to replace your government with one which suppress Christians... (i think that's a fair comparison)

I'm shocked, in fact, that Iranians love America so much... I guess they just despise the US leaders who they would blame for all the bad stuff while liking American people, culture and freedom...

The game of diplomacy is just a pale imitation of 'real' life ....

America used to help Al Queda fight the Russians (if not Al Queda per say the precursor to Al Queda). The enemy of my enemy of my enemy is my friend. America also use to help the Iraqis fight the Iranians, and the Iranians fight the Irqaqis. This is not a uniquely American phenomenon. History is full of similar examples. Just take a look at European history and all the wars and permutations of alliances.

George Friedman, in his book America's Secret War, says that some non-Afaghani's travelled to Afghanistan join the mujahideen with fake passports and identity papers provided by the US. After the Russians withdrew the first Bush administration shut down its covert operations but did not return these holy warriors their original papers, partly out if indifference and partly because their own countries did not want them back. Friedman says thousands were left stranded and ended up becoming part of Al Queda.

typo.... The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn61PJQGCUo

Watch this and the other comment links directly after 9/11 and form your own opinion.

Spyman said:
"America also used to help the Iraqis fight the Iranians, and the Iranians fight the Iraqis."

Yeah, that's how the true story will go, whether people like to hear it or not. Diplomacy players should be able to appreciate the logic involved.

In Real Life there are several aspects to it:
1. the pure economic interest of the weapon manufacturers and the national economy.
2. the possibility to have the weaponry tested in a Real War situation so it can be perfected and developed.
3. The benefit of keeping the oil-producing world low, dependent and in division.
4... yeah, I expect you can come up with more...

How can the U.S. establishment keep dragging the world by the nose this way?
A nation of excellent Diplomacy players?

Great post Spyman and others!

Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 by Steve Coll is also an excellent book on this subject

Orathaic said:
"The US also supported Saddam and basically paid him to invade Iran (after the islamic revolution there removed the pro-US Shah (king)"

I've also seen the interpretation somewhere that the CIA wanted to be rid of the Shah for he was getting too wilful and "megalomaniac", visionary of Iran as taking a place in the world among the *great powers*, and thus not to be trusted with being always fully compatible with american interests.
So the poular rising that brought Khomeini to power was also powered by CIA.

I know not, but it is not in the least to raise an eyebrow if it's the true story.

Having a fundamentalist Iranian regime to launch a Saddam Hussain against is only a bonus bargain in the deal.

America wants to make sure that no one power comes to dominate the region from the middle east to Iran. Thus America continually "dabbles". Its is amoral but it makes sense. Any power that did come to dominate could become very powerful.
It is just like our game diplomacy.

As far as the 'war on terror' bogeyman goes, Al Qaeda is absolutely a US invention.
Invention through exaggeration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbkvz4hezmU&list=FLSEaF5KPWR6sbYJpggZU6VA&index=3&feature=plpp_video

@CK, sounds like a perfect day to go out and spread some propoganda... No-one questions him because 'he was there' and he van't possibly be lying

I especially like how the videos which support the positions i already believe reinforce my belief, while the videos which contradict those positions are rejected and in my rejection reinforce my belief... Humans are great at this cognitive bias!

"I was under the impression that the CIA had trained the mujahideen(literally 'those who struggle for God'), including individuals like Osama Bin Laden; who were opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. "

This is a conflation of several different efforts. The CIA and various Islamic states (primarily Saudi Arabia) all armed, trained, and equipped the mujahideen - but they had completely separate contacts in Afghanistan, supply chains, organizations, and strategies.

Pakistan was very worried about American influence on the ground in Afghanistan; they didn't want to simply trade the Soviet Union for the USA. The agreement was that no Americans were allowed on the ground in Afghanistan, and all money and equipment was to be dispensed to the Muj by the ISI (who supported the most whacked-out religious fanatics they could find). There were some efforts to get around this restriction by Afghans and Americans, but nothing major.

"George Friedman, in his book America's Secret War, says that some non-Afaghani's travelled to Afghanistan join the mujahideen with fake passports and identity papers provided by the US. "

I would take anything George Friedman wrote (and I have the book, but didn't read the whole thing) with a grain of salt. The Saudis did not need American help to get fake IDs and transportation - they had their own network and funding, of which some of the organizations and people that would join to form al-Qaeda was a part.

My primary reference for all this is the aforementioned "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll, which I would also highly recommend.

"I've also seen the interpretation somewhere that the CIA wanted to be rid of the Shah for he was getting too wilful and "megalomaniac", visionary of Iran as taking a place in the world among the *great powers*, and thus not to be trusted with being always fully compatible with american interests."

I once knew a man who was the grandson of the Iranian equivalent of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under the Shah. He was very active in Iranian emigre circles (lots of Iranians here in Southern California), was initially in favor of the Revolution until Khomeini took it over, and he was absolutely convinced that Carter supported the ouster of the Shah and Khomeini because the American Elite at the time considered Muslim clerics to be much more reliable allies against the Communists than secular monarchs. No hard proof, of course (yet), but a fascinating theory.

"The US also supported Saddam and basically paid him to invade Iran (after the islamic revolution there removed the pro-US Shah (king)""

Saddam never 'invaded' Iran. US support for Iraq only began in the mid-1980s, and it was meager at best.

"Saddam never 'invaded' Iran. US support for Iraq only began in the mid-1980s, and it was meager at best. "

Is this official history or Putin's revised history? By that do you mean that Iraq was really just claiming the ground that began to them anyway (according to Iraq)? The Iranian's certainly viewed it as an invasion.

"would take anything George Friedman wrote (and I have the book, but didn't read the whole thing) with a grain of salt. "

Why do you say that Tolstoy? I can understand why some people might not like George Friedman (wikileaks for example), but what makes you doubt his expertise?

Zain-al Quws & Saif Saad are Iraqi towns which were mercilessly shelled by the Iranians beginning on September 4. But that's not even the beginning of it.

The Iranians ripped up the Algiers Accord in summer of 1979, which settled the boundary and provided for non-interference in internal affairs. On July 17, 1980, Hussein offered Khomeni good neighborly relations and support for the Iranian people. They did the same thing at the Non-Aligned Summit in the fall of that year, then later visited Tehran to do so. Meanwhile in early 1980 (and really before that) Khomeni urged the Iraqi people to rebel against the Baath government. They declared that Iraq was "Persian" and that they export their revolution to Iraq. In May 1980 they claimed that it was not interference for Iran to go to Baghdad and liberate Iraq. Then in late 1980, they began an orchestrated campaign of assassinations & terrorism. Demonstrations in Iraq, sponsored by Iran, were organized with chants such as "Death to Saddam Hussein". In October, 1979, Iran ordered Iraq to close the Iranian consulates there, and then proceeded to smash them to pieces anyway. Attacks on Iraqi territory itself escalated, with border skirmishes, kidnapings, bombings, etc. Grenades were hurled at an Iraqi university during a funeral procession for a previous attack at a university. Tariq Aziz was attacked and almost assassinated. Other high ranking officials as well. Iraq protested these attacks at least 140 times.

Then, two more aggressions were the last straw. 1-The closure of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway to Iraqi traffic. And 2-The continued shellings of four Iraqi towns (clearly Iraqi towns - Zain - al Quws & Saif Saad were recognized as Iraqi in all international agreements) beginning on September 4.

On September 28, after entreaties to cease attacking densely populated areas ceased, Hussein issued the following statement:

"We stressed to the whole world that Iraq has no designs on the Iranian territories and that we do not at all intend to launch war with Iran or expand the circle of struggle with it, outside of defending our rights and sovereignty … We would like to assure the Iranian people that we have no intention of encroaching upon their rights, laying claims on any of their territories, or humiliating them and the Iranian army … We hope that the Iranian regime will benefit from this lesson … and will honorably cooperate with the region’s countries in accordance with this honorable independent trend. It will then guarantee for Iran its legitimate interests, consolidate its security and stability, and keep it away from the policies of aggression and adventures, which have brought it only losses and catastrophes."

The general public is so brainwashed about Iraq that this whole episode has been rewritten as Iraqi "aggression".

And if Iraq had territorial designs, why were they offering peace offer after offer throughout the first year of the war, when they had the advantage? All offers consistently refused by Khomeini, who demanded Hussein be removed from power, steadfastly said it was 'unIslamic' to negotiate with non-believers, and wouldn't accept peace even when it had penetrated deep into Iranian territory.

As for US "support" to Iraq, it was $200 million in total from 1983-1988 (from 1980-1982 US did not even have diplomatic relations with Iraq), 125 million of which was in 1988, when the war was all but over. It amounted to .5% of the total amount of arms sold to Iraq. For a comparison, *Egypt* sold Iraq almost triple that amount. The USSR and its allies sold Iraq $30 billion in arms. France sold Iraq 5.5 billion. China 5.2 billion.

Iraq got a 'status quo' peace treaty entirely because of the actions of the United States. From the undeclared naval war against Iran in 1987-1988 to the downing of Iran Air flight 655 (which killed nearly 300 civilians) to the massive signals and reconnaissance intelligence provided to Saddam, the idea that anyone could try to suggest that American aid was trivial is absolutely bizarre.

Putin's numbers include only 'official' dollar-denominated aid. There are a million ways to make sure military supplies (for instance) 'fall off a truck' (or train, or ship) and land in the "right" hands, not to mention all the ways you can support one side of a war without spending a dime. Also, Egypt - and to a lesser extent the kingdom of Sa'ud and the Gulf Emirates which bankrolled the war for Iraq - were (and are) US satrapies who supported Saddam in some cases only after a fair amount of poking and prodding. American support for Iraq was substantial - and mostly "off the books".

"And if Iraq had territorial designs, why were they offering peace offer after offer throughout the first year of the war, when they had the advantage?"
Of course they would, peace would have been on their terms.

Rumsfield met with Hussein twice and in 1982 Iraq was taken off the States Sponsoring Terrorism list. The US supplied chemical weapons to Iraq and accepted Hussein's apology for the USS Stark. How many countries would get away with attacking a US ship?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq61.pdf

"Why do you say that Tolstoy? I can understand why some people might not like George Friedman (wikileaks for example), but what makes you doubt his expertise?"

It's not his expertise I doubt, but his objectivity. Stratfor is a big business with a lot of very very powerful clients. I am certain anything that would prejudice the public against any client of Stratfor (or potential client, or friend/ally of either) would never make it into anything intended for public release, no matter how true and relevant it is.

The escorting of Kuwaiti oil tankers and the accidental shooting down of an airliner led to Iran accepting a status quo settlement? Funny, I thought it had something to do with the massive victories Iraq scored in 1988, including the capture of Fao peninsula, the dislodging of the Iranians from Salamcheh, the dislodging of the Iranians from the Majnoon islands, the dislodging of Iran from Kurdistan and the seizure of border territory in central Iran. All occurred in quick succession in spring/summer 1988.

But right, somehow US aid was essential to all those victories, even though the US sent Iraq little to no military equipment and if they had sent more, they had little reason to hide the 'official numbers', as most of the world sympathized with Iraq, since Iran was a pariah state.

"Of course they would, peace would have been on their terms."

Right, right, damned if you do, damned if you don't. If Iraq pressed on, it's proof of their insatiable desire for Iranian territory. If Iran offered peace, it's because they wanted to preserve their advantage. Even though in 1982 they offered Iran war reparations and a return to the status quo ante, which Iran rejected. In 1987, when Iran was in a very advantageous position, Iraq again offered peace, and Iran rejected it. So what's the excuse for that?

No matter what Iraq did, they'll be blamed for being the aggressor, even though it's abundantly clear from the more than a dozen peace proposals who was the actual aggressor.

"The US supplied chemical weapons to Iraq"

No, the Germans did (for whatever reason Iranian chemical weapons usage is never mentioned).The only military equipment we do know the Americans sent, *was sent to Iran* - anti-tank & anti-aircraft missiles, as supplied by Israel. I ask the conspiracy theorists (Tolstoy rotates between the arc of chaos/Brzezinski conspiracy & the US supported Iraq conspiracy, I can't keep up), where are the all the US made weapons/military equipment in all of these wars, if the US supposedly gave them all of this?

" How many countries would get away with attacking a US ship?"

How many countries would get away with shooting down an Iranian airliner?

"The escorting of Kuwaiti oil tankers and the accidental shooting down of an airliner led to Iran accepting a status quo settlement? Funny, I thought it had something to do with the massive victories Iraq scored in 1988"

Apparently Putin forgot to google things like "Operation Praying Mantis", "Eager Glacier", or even read largeham's link.

I hate to say it but i'm bored with the details, man kills man, man supports man in killin other man, regional power balance altered in hopes of gaining more influence... Reading about chimp behaviour at least leaves me with some solid facts (and possibly experiments which we're not allowed do on humans..)