It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia Is Sending Weapons To Taliban, Top U.S. General Confirms

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

This may just well be the beginning of something huge. Jeez us this world is going down the drain more and more everyday




posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
Given US has already admitted it created the taliban to destroy the old soviet union it would be what one called pay back, no.


No they didnt they never aided Taliban.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 4/24/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: Kali74

it's getting too difficult to keep track of all the events currently going on in the world.

all this craziness is making my head dizzy.

Look within for guidance your Higher Self may be relaying instinctive data to you...




there's a 420 joke in there somewhere.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Tardacus

No we aren't, not now and not before. Some rebels we armed to fight Assad later became/joined ISIS. Though that should certainly serve as another chapter in the gigantic book of mind your own business.


WRONG.
Hillary armed Al-Nusra and ISIS from the weapons in Libya



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

The US spent US$3.2 billion arming the taliban through pakistani ISI. It was called Operation Cyclone. Zbigniew Brzezinski gloated about it in various magazine interviews.
edit on 24-4-2017 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
Dualism or non Dualism?
What is really going on... here?


Neither.

Something else affecting... things.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: dragonridr

The US spent US$3.2 billion arming the taliban through pakistani ISI. It was called Operation Cyclone. Zbigniew Brzezinski gloated about it in various magazine interviews.


Again not taliban come on did you even read your link?? Taliban didnt exist until 1991 before that it was the mujahadeen. When the soviets lost in 1989 they disbanded with most returning to their countries such as Saudi Arabia, jordan, ETC. The remaining became drug lords selling opium. Later when the taliban started forming these drug dealers would be recruited since many had huge weapon stashes.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Sure those minerals will get tapped...but the drugs will still continue getting into the USA - how else is the CIA going to get their black money for their purposes?



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I don't like this if it's true, but the U.S. is so much worse. I honestly don't even care to look into this. I've seen what my country does. It's probably propaganda as we have seen time and time again.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Mujahideen (person involved in Jihad) is a label given by US to the Pashtun tribes that the US hired to fight the Soviet Union which latter evolved into the ruling party the US called the taliban (islamic meaning student). Somewhat related, I remember reading an interview with Bin Laden in which he was asked how did he form "al qaeda". He had never heard of the term before which means base in arabic. So it was again just another US label.

Prior to taliban, the Musahiban dynasty tried to ban Opium with limited degree's of success but when they were ousted by US paid insurgents (your Mujahideen), Opium went bigtime until the Taliban totally banned its production in 1998/99. After 9/11 and the resulting US led invaision in Afghanistan, the poppy fields were again restored with production greater than ever before by the new protectors of the land (The Cocaine Import Agency).


edit on 24-4-2017 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Yes

Please send more American troops to Afghanistan and get rid of the Taliban.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   
it must be opposite week for US armed forces.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: dragonridr

Mujahideen (person involved in Jihad) is a label given by US to the Pashtun tribes that the US hired to fight the Soviet Union which latter evolved into the ruling party the US called the taliban (islamic meaning student). Somewhat related, I remember reading an interview with Bin Laden in which he was asked how did he form "al qaeda". He had never heard of the term before which means base in arabic. So it was again just another US label.

Prior to taliban, the Musahiban dynasty tried to ban Opium with limited degree's of success but when they were ousted by US paid insurgents (your Mujahideen), Opium went bigtime until the Taliban totally banned its production in 1998/99. After 9/11 and the resulting US led invaision in Afghanistan, the poppy fields were again restored with production greater than ever before by the new protectors of the land (The Cocaine Import Agency).




Wrong the Taliban were formed by students from a Madrassa in Pakistan. These were Islamic students that started there movement. Had nothing to do with US labels you apparently made that up realizing you were wrong.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



you apparently made that up realizing you were wrong


Perhaps I did. Or perhaps I was just planting seeds for those that are starting to feel that government and media truths are becoming a bit too unrealistic.

Your welcome.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Taliban are a bunch of Islamist scumbags. They are hostile to any and all westerners, be they Americans or Russians. I don't think Russia supplies arms to Taliban. I haven't seen Taliban armed with any modern Russian arms.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


The Taliban are tribal militias, in a ruralistic country with a society structured around tribal kinship. In other words, the Taliban have been around there as long as those people have existed.

The USA State Department and the CIA propped up the Mujahideen, which were composed of foreign Islamic jihadists trained for guerrilla warfare and deployed in Afghanistan with the mission to carry out a resistance against Soviet occupation. This resistance included communications networks and recruitment of locals.

So ask yourself a simple question with an obvious answer: how does a few dozen foreign jihadists evolve into a resistance that was so effective that the Soviets ended up retreating entirely? Because local Afghans were radicalized and joined the Mujahideen, and were thus recruited, trained, supplied and maintained by the same handlers as the Mujahideen itself: the USA.

When the Soviets retreated, it left a situation in Afghanistan where local militiamen were veterans of Mujahideen and with the skills and ideology they had acquired from this experience, used it to traine their own tribal militias. This led to the Taliban that we know today.

Furthermore, it is a well-known fact that the USA directly aided the Taliban by supplying them with Stinger MANPADS. By that point, the covert support by the CIA was rendered redundant, since it was incredibly obvious that such weapon systems could only, and intentionally, come from one source. Until then, the CIA had taken great steps to avoid such obvious links. For instance, supplying crates of Lee-Enfield rifles instead of AK-47s.

As for this story in the OP, it sounds like your typical unfounded, Tabloid-quality crap. It's not impossible, but the Russians and the Taliban are unlikely to ever find common ground.
edit on 4252017 by TheStalkingHorse because: Autocorrect likes to change political context



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join