4 ms·

got anything from the past 50 years?

djsumdog 6y ago
You gotta wait for it to be declassified. Syria was likely CIA funded. Same with Libya. Just wait a bit. It all comes out after everyone's stopped caring.
- jonnybgood 6y ago
  Are you speaking about Syria and Libya today that was a result of the Arab Spring in multiple Arab countries, which took everyone including CIA by surprise? Do you really believe the CIA is capable of something on that scale? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring
  - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
    If it took the CIA by surprise, why were Syria and Libya on the short list of countries that General Wesley Clark identified as regime change targets in 2007, three years before the Arab Spring? https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw
    - sgift 6y ago
      Because that's a wish list vs. a "we assume this will happen/are actively working on it list"? I'm pretty sure the CIA also shortlisted every Eastern Bloc state in the 80s for regime change. Doesn't mean the SU fell because of the CIA.
  - mushbino 6y ago
    There have been many parties involved in both Syria and Libya. Just take the NATO involvement in Libya for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_... Syria is just as complicated if not more so. It turned into a proxy war between the US and Russia and don't forget ISIS and the many different factions who have received funding from multiple sources. How many people have been killed in the US this year causing and because of the protests at the hands of government and extremists? I don't think we'll be getting a NATO bombing anytime soon. I also can't picture that happening in Nigeria.
internet_user 6y ago
The entire year of 2020?
BigBubbleButt 6y ago
Well, a lot of the turmoil in the Middle East is at least partially (I'd argue mostly) to blame because of the US. Al Qaeda was trained by the CIA. I think it's relatively accepted that there were no WMDs in Iraq, so that entire invasion/war could be classified as terrorism. There are countless drone strikes with civilian casualties around the world. Whether or not you agree with why we did it, the CIA is credited with Stuxnet (it's terrorism even if you think this is one of the "good" ones). There are certainly more, but let's not pretend like the US isn't intimately involved in directly inserting itself into international affairs illegitimately. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/ https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/
- jonnybgood 6y ago
  You should read your links and learn the differences between middle eastern extremists groups. The mujahideen are not Al Qaeda. Most people say the Taliban are trained by the CIA. But even that’s not technically correct. Taliban are also not Al Qaeda.
  - pmachinery 6y ago
    From one of the links you said they should read: "Haqqani - one of bin Laden's closest associates in the 1980s - received direct cash payments from CIA agents, without the mediation of the ISI. "This independent source of funding gave Haqqani disproportionate influence over the mujahideen." "Haqqani and his network played an important role in the formation and growth of al Qaeda, with Jalalhuddin Haqqani allowing bin Laden to train mujahideen volunteers in Haqqani territory and build extensive infrastructure there." From a more extensive page linked from there: "Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, an associate of Bin Laden's, was given visas to enter the US on four occasions by the CIA [...] Rahman was a co-plotter of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing." "Afghan Arabs 'benefited indirectly from the CIA's funding, through the ISI and resistance organizations [...] at an estimated cost of $800 million in the years up to and including 1988'" "The Guardian alleges that the CIA helped Osama bin Laden build an underground camp at Khost, which bin Laden used to train Mujahideen soldiers." In a 2004 article entitled "Al-Qaeda's origins and links", the BBC wrote: "During the anti-Soviet war Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA." "Two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto said Osama bin Laden was initially pro-American [and] Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary in the UK from 1997–2001, wrote, 'Throughout the '80s [Bin Laden] was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis'. And what do the Saudis have to say about it? Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia stated (in the wake of 9/11): "He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn't it ironic?"
ikiris 6y ago
stuxnet...
- et2o 6y ago
  Designed to destroy nuclear production facilities. Not terrorism.
  - tossmeout 6y ago
    What makes it not terrorism? Because the target was government-run facilities instead of civilians, or something else?
    - petre 6y ago
      Yes. It's cyber warfare. No civilians harmed, UF4 centrifuges disabled. I guess you can call it a surgical strike only without air to ground missiles?
      - Phlarp 6y ago
        It also acted as a starting gun for every other country on earth to create and/or massively expand their cyber warfare capabilities. Sparking a new arms race for the 21st century, normalizing acts of (cyber) aggression against foreign infrastructure during peacetime. Pandora's box
        sailfast 6y ago
        Maybe, but in this thread we're discussing whether Pandora was a terrorist. I think the answer is still no.
    - bawolff 6y ago
      I think the argument would be because its a military target (equipment used to manufacture weapons). Also probably a bit of, because we did it instead of it being done to us.
    - 6y ago

You gotta wait for it to be declassified. Syria was likely CIA funded. Same with Libya. Just wait a bit. It all comes out after everyone's stopped caring.

jonnybgood 6y ago
Are you speaking about Syria and Libya today that was a result of the Arab Spring in multiple Arab countries, which took everyone including CIA by surprise? Do you really believe the CIA is capable of something on that scale? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  If it took the CIA by surprise, why were Syria and Libya on the short list of countries that General Wesley Clark identified as regime change targets in 2007, three years before the Arab Spring? https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw
  - sgift 6y ago
    Because that's a wish list vs. a "we assume this will happen/are actively working on it list"? I'm pretty sure the CIA also shortlisted every Eastern Bloc state in the 80s for regime change. Doesn't mean the SU fell because of the CIA.
- mushbino 6y ago
  There have been many parties involved in both Syria and Libya. Just take the NATO involvement in Libya for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_... Syria is just as complicated if not more so. It turned into a proxy war between the US and Russia and don't forget ISIS and the many different factions who have received funding from multiple sources. How many people have been killed in the US this year causing and because of the protests at the hands of government and extremists? I don't think we'll be getting a NATO bombing anytime soon. I also can't picture that happening in Nigeria.

internet_user 6y ago

The entire year of 2020?

BigBubbleButt 6y ago

Well, a lot of the turmoil in the Middle East is at least partially (I'd argue mostly) to blame because of the US. Al Qaeda was trained by the CIA. I think it's relatively accepted that there were no WMDs in Iraq, so that entire invasion/war could be classified as terrorism. There are countless drone strikes with civilian casualties around the world. Whether or not you agree with why we did it, the CIA is credited with Stuxnet (it's terrorism even if you think this is one of the "good" ones). There are certainly more, but let's not pretend like the US isn't intimately involved in directly inserting itself into international affairs illegitimately. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/ https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/

jonnybgood 6y ago
You should read your links and learn the differences between middle eastern extremists groups. The mujahideen are not Al Qaeda. Most people say the Taliban are trained by the CIA. But even that’s not technically correct. Taliban are also not Al Qaeda.
- pmachinery 6y ago
  From one of the links you said they should read: "Haqqani - one of bin Laden's closest associates in the 1980s - received direct cash payments from CIA agents, without the mediation of the ISI. "This independent source of funding gave Haqqani disproportionate influence over the mujahideen." "Haqqani and his network played an important role in the formation and growth of al Qaeda, with Jalalhuddin Haqqani allowing bin Laden to train mujahideen volunteers in Haqqani territory and build extensive infrastructure there." From a more extensive page linked from there: "Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, an associate of Bin Laden's, was given visas to enter the US on four occasions by the CIA [...] Rahman was a co-plotter of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing." "Afghan Arabs 'benefited indirectly from the CIA's funding, through the ISI and resistance organizations [...] at an estimated cost of $800 million in the years up to and including 1988'" "The Guardian alleges that the CIA helped Osama bin Laden build an underground camp at Khost, which bin Laden used to train Mujahideen soldiers." In a 2004 article entitled "Al-Qaeda's origins and links", the BBC wrote: "During the anti-Soviet war Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA." "Two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto said Osama bin Laden was initially pro-American [and] Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary in the UK from 1997–2001, wrote, 'Throughout the '80s [Bin Laden] was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis'. And what do the Saudis have to say about it? Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia stated (in the wake of 9/11): "He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn't it ironic?"

ikiris 6y ago

stuxnet...

et2o 6y ago
Designed to destroy nuclear production facilities. Not terrorism.
- tossmeout 6y ago
  What makes it not terrorism? Because the target was government-run facilities instead of civilians, or something else?
  - petre 6y ago
    Yes. It's cyber warfare. No civilians harmed, UF4 centrifuges disabled. I guess you can call it a surgical strike only without air to ground missiles?
    - Phlarp 6y ago
      It also acted as a starting gun for every other country on earth to create and/or massively expand their cyber warfare capabilities. Sparking a new arms race for the 21st century, normalizing acts of (cyber) aggression against foreign infrastructure during peacetime. Pandora's box
      - sailfast 6y ago
        Maybe, but in this thread we're discussing whether Pandora was a terrorist. I think the answer is still no.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    I think the argument would be because its a military target (equipment used to manufacture weapons). Also probably a bit of, because we did it instead of it being done to us.
  - 6y ago