Turkey: 'Sow war and reap terror' (Clinton's role in the rise of al-Qaeda)

atimes.com ^ | Nov 22, 2003 | K Gajendra Singh

[Destro]

Thanks to Indians like K Gajendra Singh, chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies.

Clinton's foreign policy in Bosnia in support of the Muslims created an opportunity for 9/11 to happen. Clandestine links can help explain why Bosnian Muslim war veterens in the late 90s came into the US and were unmolested right up until they drove planes into buildings (yes, some of the 9/11 al-Qaeda were Bosnian Muslim fighters-some under investigation by the UN war crimes court).

[Destro]

bump from India.

[Destro]

bump

[Robert_Paulson2]

We have been in a World WAR with islam, which started in Europe... and the AMERICAN people don't even truly realize this.

They think this is payback for 9-11.
9-11 was instead, the islamic version of pearl harbor... after minor incursions in the former yugoslavian state...

and despite toppling two countries since 9-11, we are no ways near eradication of the problem... because as a nation, to the very top level, WE are in denial... "Islam is Peace" don't you know?

Bush cannot declare war without being further painted as a WAR MONGER, which he absolutely abhors being labelled as... the sad truth is, we are in an escalating war that will end up killing billions. BILLIONS... whether Bush is president or not...

The only difference is, if we have a hawk for president, we might survive better than if we have a piece of crap for president, like hillary... SHE would get us all killed with her incompetance. Bush endangers us with the lie "islam is peace" clearly it is not.

Maybe after the election right?
After Turkey is overrun?
and the balkans?
and the saudis fall?
and the now ill egyptian president is overthrown in a coupe d'etat? replaced with an ayatollah from Iran?

I got lotsa questions.
I am getting no answers.. but I believe major escalation is underway... on a whole host of levels...

Anybody else of the opinion that we backed the WRONG side of the Balkans conflict?

[Cicero]

Since the Indians have their own interests, their news articles can't always be trusted, especially on Pakistan.

But in this instance I think they are absolutely right. Bosnia was a training ground for Muslim terrorists. Not only that, unlike the earlier war in Afghanistan to expel the Soviet Union, it has NO national security value for the United States. Precisely the opposite.

Clinton worked closely with the two forces that are the biggest threats to the United States: Communist China and Islamic fundamentalism. He gave China MIRVed ICBMs and nuclear warheads. He gave the Muslims invaluable training in terrorism against the west.

[Cicero]

Anybody else of the opinion that we backed the WRONG side of the Balkans conflict?

Yes, I've been saying so for a long time, since before clinton gave the orders to bomb Belgrade. The trouble started when clinton went into Bosnia to help the Muslims.

[XHogPilot]

bump for truth

[Destro]

Robert_Paulson2: I got lotsa questions.

Another Indian, B Raman asked the following questions in his article: US after 9/11: None the wiser

Were they able to hoodwink the US agencies by projecting themselves as continuing allies of the US in its campaign against Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Slobodan Milosevic in Bosnia?

Did the HUM's role, found useful by the US, in training the jihadi opponents of Milosevic in Bosnia and Kosovo and participating in their jihad make the US agencies close their eyes to its burrowing into US homeland in preparation for taking the jihad to the US homeland?

[joan]

Don't forget that Turkey has suffered terrorist attacks from the Chechens whom they supported against the Russians by giving some of those Mujahedins from Bosnia more training and sending them to Chechnya.

When Russia found out what Turkey was doing, they in turn started supporting Kurdish separatists:

Turkey and the Chechens

In November, 1994, when the Chechens appeared to be pushing the Russian forces out of Chechnya, the Turks began to receive committed Mujahedins from Bosnia, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran and train them in mountain guerilla warfare techniques, before turning them loose on the Chechen front. It appears that, around the same time, the Turks began to train Uzbek militants of the Erk party. The governments of both Uzbekistan and Russia complained about this, but Turkish officials fiercely denied the allegations.

The Russians could not believe their eyes. The primary reason they had ignored Turkey during their previous investigations was that any Turkish help for Chechen autonomists was seen as defying logic: a possible Chechen victory would encourage other violent independence movements in the Caucasus and beyond, including Abdullah Ocalan's PKK, Turkey's painful military thorn in Anatolia. Yet, it seemed that Turkish foreign policy officials had decided to take that risk, possibly in an attempt to push Russia out of the Caucasus oil fields.

Rather predictably, the Russians decided to respond by allocating resources to PKK and the other Kurdish independence factions, while letting Turkey know that they were doing so. They were hoping that increased Russian interest in the Kurdish dispute would scare off the Turks, who ever since the end of WWII had been particularly concerned about Soviet attempts to infiltrate the Kurdish movement and use it against US-supported Turkish influences in the Muslim-dominated territories of the USSR.

The expected reaction from Turkey came in 1996, when what was described as a 'conference', entitled "The History of Kurdistan" was held in Moscow, organized in partnership by the (PKK-controlled) Kurdistan Committee, the Kurdistan Liberation Front and the Russian Nationalities and Regional Policy Ministry. When the Turkish ambassador to Moscow complained, he was told that Russia would withdraw support from the Kurdish cause when it had firm evidence that Turkey had dropped its covert support for an independent Muslim Chechen republic.

Thus, this tit-for-tat game has been unfolding ever since. Turkey has been publicly condemning the violent tactics of Chechen paramilitaries, while at the same time assisting them, in an attempt to keep the strong Chechen lobby in Turkey happy. Indeed, the grass-roots support for the Chechen cause in Turkey should not be underestimated: it is claimed that there are today approximately 70,000 Chechens living in Turkey, while up to 10 million Turks trace their immediate ancestry to the Caucasus. Consequently, dozens of Chechen and other Caucasian solidarity associations are active throughout the nation.

[Destro]

See #8

[swarthyguy]

>>Since the Indians have their own interests, their news articles can't always be trusted, especially on Pakistan.


I love it when conservatives, instead of judging a particular individual's viewpoint, trot out tired cliches and engage in the worst kind of silly collective judgement.

Since the Americans have their own interests, their news articles can't always be trusted, especially on Iraq.

Since the Israelis have their own interests, their news articles can't always be trusted, especially on Palestine.

[Destro]

bump

[Destro]

fyi

[pgkdan]

Anybody else of the opinion that we backed the WRONG side of the Balkans conflict?

I've been saying that since 1999. The Serbs were fighting then the same war we're fighting now!

[pgkdan]

Anybody else of the opinion that we backed the WRONG side of the Balkans conflict?

I've been saying that since 1999. The Serbs were fighting then the same war we're fighting now!

[pgkdan]

Anybody else of the opinion that we backed the WRONG side of the Balkans conflict?

I've been saying that since 1999. The Serbs were fighting then the same war we're fighting now!

[Amerigomag]

Anybody else of the opinion that we backed the WRONG side of the Balkans conflict?

I, like many US citizens, through utter ignorance, initially supported our policy in the Balkans. I saw the conflict initially as a contest between good and evil. A contest between an evil oppessor and the oppressed. A secular conflict.

Like most US citizens I played a lot of historical, catchup ball as the conflict widened. The pattern that emerged was not secular but religious. The continuation of a religious conflict that stretched back to the middle ages.

Should we have opposed a totalitarian regiem, bent on genocide, in principal? Yes. Should we have developed the means for Islam to reach epidemic proportions? No.

My hindsight is 20/20.

[Maria S]

So you are Indian? Are you just humble or in your native language (?) is "I" not capitalized? (I had to teach a Mexican student to capitalize her "I's" when she was learning English.)

I hope the questions aren't too personal; just wondering. I bug our Belarus, Afghani, Mexican, and Polish friends crazy with questions about THEIR homelands.

[Imperialist]

Yep!

[pgkdan]

Should we have opposed a totalitarian regiem, bent on genocide, in principal? Yes.

There was never any genocide in Kosovo, as alleged by Clinton, McCain and the dominant media. Never. Until now. Serbs have been sytematically murdered and intimidated into leaving Kosovo since our horribly misguided NATO bombing campaign. Churches are burned, ancient monestaries and convents are looted and burned...the religious living there murdered and raped. That's happening to Christians in Kosovo today. Where's the outrage?