>Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>
>>John, Ravi, and others:
>>
>>I must admit that the older I get the more possibilities and uncertainties
>>I see. Therefore your assumption that islamic terrorism is a "blowback"
>>reaction to US policies and oppression of the masses they created or aided
>>seems to me a somewhat naive article of faith.
>>
>
>
>hi wojtek, thanks for the response. to clarify my explicit position: i
>am not assuming that the attack is a blowback of US actions. i am only
>defending the position that it is sensible and worthwhile to question
>"why" this incident happened.
>
>
>>If things were as certain as the above described assumption holds, we
>>should be swamped by terrorists from Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and
>>Yugoslavia avenging the unquestionable wrongdoings of the US foreign
>>policy
>>there.
>
>
One crucial difference is (as far as we know) the CIA has not been involved
in creating terrorists in North Korea, Vietnam, Latin America (Well, maybe
Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua, Colombia, etc.). But to find out, the "Black
Budget" would have to be opened up.
In 1979 the "black budget" was reportedly $9 billion, in 1989, $36 billion. What is it today? How much was spent on Islamic networks during 1980s in the proxy war against the Soviets? How many of those networks are still in operation today? We will never know until they surface, unless the
"black budget" is opened to get the spooks out before they start their operations.
But as you know, the opposite is taking place. The National Security State is casting more and longer shadows.
The CIA "black budget" is not the full extent of funding for terrorism, but we will not know its extent until the files are opened up. The US needs to sweep the dirt off its own doorstep, before it starts sweeping the dirt off its neighbor's.
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp