[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.

[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]

bump

[Destro]

fyi

[a_Turk]

F*** Gajendra Singh. And the Destro he rode in on.

[txhurl]

More importantly...

MONSOOR IJAZ told us the Day after the Attacks of September 11, 2001 on the FoX News Channel that the CLINTONS had refused 3 Offers he negotiated with the Sudan during the 1990's to hand over OSAMA bin LADEN to us on a Silver Platter.

Since then both the Sudanese Ambassador to the U.S. representing the Sudan President during these 3 Offers as well as the CLINTONS' own White House Political Advisor, DICK MORRIS, have confirmed what MONSSOR IJAZ told us 2 years ago...

...I hang onto everything MONSOOR IJAZ has to tell us. And I think the BUSH White House does also.

...And so does the Democrat Party...for very different reasons.

MONSSOR IJAZ = The Most Feared Man in America by Democrats

145 posted on 11/20/2003 6:36 PM CST by ALOHA RONNIE (Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 www.LZXRAY.com)

From this thread:~Bin Laden In Iran

[Destro]

bump

[marron]

Our relations with the Islamic world have been evolving.

At one time it was convenient to see Saudi Arabia as a US safe zone, they were a rich pal who seemed to have no ambitions of his own beyond helping us to balance our budget and seeing to it that our key politicians and State Deparment weenies had a comfortable retirement. Since they seemed content in that role, it all seemed rather harmless.

And since they rather hermetically controlled their territory, and their banking secrecy is pretty complete, it makes a great platform for all kinds of operations, as well as a good place to get funding for those operations that Congress would not want to know about.

The first attempt at playing for bigger stakes came when Carter and his national security advisor decided that Islam could be harnessed as a direct hammer against Communism much more effectively than could Western values, which seemed to be on the defensive everywhere (including within Carter's own cerebrum). They withdrew support for the Shah and encouraged the rise of the Ayatollah, which has led to a generation of misery and warfare.

It also made the Saudis even more important as our outpost in the Islamic world.

Then, we turned to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as full partners in the war to eject the Soviets from Afghanistan. It worked. From there it was easy for us to see the possibilty of using Islam to open up the Soviet underbelly. It also awakened the Saudis and Pakistanis to the possibilities of projecting themselves into Central Asia which, with the fall of the USSR, suddenly became very possible.

I continue to maintain that our foreign policy during the nineties was written in Riyadh. Our policy of supporting jihad which had some sense directed at the Soviets ceased to have any further reason to exist almost as soon as we formulated it, since the Soviet Union fell very quickly after they withdrew from Afghanistan. And US companies began to operate in Central Asia very early in the nineties, and to form partnerships with Russian companies, which made the insurgent friends of friends a threat to our quickly evolving interests in the region.

But what normal people could see very quickly, the State Department and the Clintons failed to see, and they continued to support Islamic movements where ever they found them, even when they began to attack the US. Our first responses to attacks on us were calibrated to be weak, because these movements were abetted by our Saudi and Pakistani allies. Thus, our failure to take Bin Ladin when he was offered was not a mistake, but intentional.

We did not back away from these movements until GW Bush took office, and made his partnership with Russia the centerpiece of his early effort at foreign policy. His embrace of Putin meant withdrawing support for the Chechens, which implied the beginnings of a break with the Saudis.

9/11 sealed the deal, and we began to attack Saudi funded insurgencies all across Asia, we gave Russia the green light to do what they will with the Chechens, and we began the dance in South Asia, where we use our ability to hold India back as our hammer against Pakistan.

Our Islamic strategy which made some perverse sense in the waning days of the Cold War, when we were losing our confidence and our enemy seemed unstoppable, but it took on a life of its own even once its purpose was gone. Jihad as a means of projecting Western values was always a dubious proposition, it was more a case of setting fire to the neighborhood when you think the battle is almost lost. You only think you can control the direction of the blaze, but you can't.

Morality is in short supply in foreign policy, but this does not mean it has no place. Quite the contrary. The fact that we deal in imperfect humanity, the fact that we deal with flawed regimes and imperfect nations means it is an absolute necessity to keep a close grip on your moral purpose. If you do that you can bring good out of a murky and dangerous situation. But if you lose track of your principles you are lost, and you may become the proxy of your proxy.

And this is the story of the US in the nineties. We became the proxy of our proxies. We lost the grace that comes from clarity. And our proxies found ambitions of their own, and turned their weapons on us. They will pay for the mistake, but there is an object lesson in this for any country that aspires to be a moral force in the world. Sometimes you have to fight dirty, but you must never forget why you are doing it, and never lose sight of the dangers of doing it, never lose sight of the larger moral purpose, or you are lost.

[Tailgunner Joe]

CLINTON SCANDALS

[swarthyguy]

Gajendara seems to have a love affair with the Turks.

All well and good, but as in the case of so much of India's foreign policy after Independence, is that trust so another symptom of the extensive naivete endemic to the Indian diplomatic corps that seems to forever engage in unrequited love - Exhibit A: China in the 50's.

I wonder how much appeal he has in Turkey since Turkish conventional wisdom probably worships at the altar of the "ataturk" of Pakistan, our friend and ally, confidant of the all knowing AlGeorgi AlSaudi AlBinBush, the one who plays Powell and the State Department as Stradivarius played the violin, that paragon of secularism and scourge of the terrorists, the Great Musharraf.