Of course, I was using more as an expression than accusation toward yourself. Apologies.
Just because Turkey is, doesn't mean we are, infact i think it rather unlikely we are. Remember, they have an alterior motive. They hate Assad but also don't want the Syrian/Turkish Kurds to fill the vacuum.
I do remember reading some of the men trained and equiped by the CIA joined ISIS as ISIS took over a lot of the smaller, so called 'moderate' rebels. I also remember reading (if i'm not mistaken) that the Qatari's were supplying a lot of weapons too.
Friend of my friend. The US/UK avoid everything where possible direct support. Using proxies (inc Nation states) allows for plausible deniability. Think why Saudi Arabia would/could possibly need $300billion dollars of military equipment!
All nations do, it depends what alterior motives we are prepared to tolerate. Think Germany tolerating Terdogan giving speeches to Turkish diaspora saying to overthrow and resist Western governments. They are playing both sides, it's who they are putting more money on. Assad won't be being funded at the moment mind you because he has another major power behind him to whom there is a narrative and agenda being pushed daily. They ostensibly poisoned a spy and his daughter with a "military grade" mildly effective nerve agent ten times more powerful than VX over here (despite having the guy in their own prison for years)
I know the US and UK special Forces trained the Mujahideen to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
And the Taliban. In Secret Affairs, several hundred Taliban came over to the UK posing as tourists and then were trained.
Me either. I knew of US support and connections pre-93. But his ARC was headquartered in London and although there is no evidence he visited (at least none made public) 20% of all phone calls bin Laden made were known to have been to London. It is therefore - given his wealth - quite inconceivable he would not have made semi-regular visits himself. Again, it's in the book.
You can't pick and choose your enemies, and that dictates who your friends are. Inteligence is a very grey area not black and white. Is it not better to have those information sources available or have nothing. How do you think the security services stop plots? by monitoring known terrorsts/ those at risk. That is most likely the reason why those who return from Syria are not arrested.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but sometimes there is no choice. Just like Churchill had no choice in having the Soviet Union as an ally. We have to deal with the world as it is, not how we would like it to be.
Absolutely agree. But there are measures and planning you can take to try and dictate who your friends are. My belief reading between the lines of how much money has flowed to some of these groups, lead me to conclude that Foreign Aid should have a more befitting title. Security services don't stop plots. They diminish the chances of plots succeeding. The problem with their method, is that as someone in the book says "the British are now sitting on a box of dynamite". Ergo, the more of these explosive elements there are returning, eventually one spark could cause the lot to go up. Yes, but in this case, we know there are anything from 23,000-50,000 (and likely many thousands more) who pose a significant risk. This will only increase. We have enough to monitor.
Indeed, Churchill was no fan of the Communists (or more accurately the Bolsheviks), but it is foolish to think these people can be worked with.
Johno Please said:
To a democratic republic... you know, like it has at the moment.
What? The Taliban were trained by the British? what planet are you on? You would only be about 5% accurate if you said they were trained by the US.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/who-is-responsible-for-the-Taliban
Was Iraq not democratic because they voted for Saddam? The people giving the wrong answer on the ballot?
Democratic Republic? Hardly, its the US's hand picked people who get elected. That sounds very much like exchanging one form of totalitarianism for another.
Pg 141:
British role in the Afghan war mainly involved covert military training and arms supplies and also extended into Muslim areas of southern Soviet Republi
Pg 143:
Ex-SAS serviceman states he trained junior muhajideen in 1983 in Scotland (Ken Connor).
Taliban officers were trained by the British. They were also trained by ISI.
Pg 145:
Jalaluddin Haqqani was a leading member of the Haqqani Network, then a military Commander of the Taliban. The same network we supported and provided things to that the British are now fighting in Afghanistan. The Muhajideen had many commanders and such become senior figures in the Taliban
Thus, you are arguing (it appears) that because the Taliban were called the Muhajideen, this is not the case. Despite the fact of the above. Just because they change their name to something does not negate the fact they were trained either directly by Western forces (MI6/SAS etc) or through proxy nations and even the use of mercenary groups.
Buy the book, and see if you still think it's not the case.
?