Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attacks US for Afghan 'double game'

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attacks US for Afghan 'double game'

news.bbc.co.uk

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accused the US of playing a "double game" in Afghanistan after the US used the same term to condemn Iran's role.

Mr Ahmadinejad said the US had "created terrorists and now say they are fighting them", as he appeared with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who is also in Kabul, has accused Iran of giving the Taliban low-level support.

Later, Mr Karzai flew to Pakistan for talks with another key neighbour.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Finally someone is coming out and publicly speaking about the reality of the Afghan conflict. In the 70's the CIA trained and funded Bin Laden and the Taliban to fight off the Soviets, now they are fighting them and eliminating them...

I am starting to like this Mahmoud Ahmadinejad more and more...

Peace,

Magnum

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Magnum007


In the 70s?

The Soviets didn't invade until 1979.

Pakistani ISI helped create the Taliban in Pakistan after the Soviets left in 1989.

The CIA supported the Mujahideen, the most significant being Massoud, the Lion of Panjshir. Massoud helped set up a new Aghan government and served as its Minister of Defense until the Taliban invaded in the 1990s.

In 1996 the government collapsed as the Taliban took the Afghan capitol and Massoud lead the Afghan Resistance against the Taliban.

Iran knows this well, they even supported the Afghan Resistance, aka the Northern Alliance, against the Taliban. Iran even made preparations before 2001 to invade Afghanistan and remove the Taliban from power.

So Ahmadinejad has no idea what he's talking about or he's outright lying, probably both.

This is from 1998, there are more stories out there. Iranian mobilization if I remember correctly was in 2000. The Taliban had killed Iranian diplomats in 1998 and seized the Iranian consulate.

Taliban threatens retaliation if Iran strikes

www.cnn.com...

IRANIAN-AFGHAN TENSIONS: 'A FULL-BLOWN REGIONAL CRISIS IS BREWING

www.globalsecurity.org...



[edit on 10/3/10 by MikeboydUS]

reply to post by MikeboydUS


My bad, it was the Mujahideen not the Taliban... But the funding and training started months before the invasion.

Source

President Jimmy Carter immediately declared that the invasion jeopardized vital U.S. interests, because the Persian Gulf area was "now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan. But the Carter administration's public outrage at Russian intervention in Afghanistan was doubly duplicitous. Not only was it used as an excuse for a program of increased military expenditure that had in fact already begun, but the U.S. had in fact been aiding the mujahideen for at least the previous six months, with precisely the hope of provoking a Soviet response. Former CIA director Robert Gates later admitted in his memoirs that aid to the rebels began in June 1979. In a candid 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brezinski, Carter's national security adviser, confirmed that U.S. aid to the rebels began before the invasion:

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan [in] December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.... We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would....

As far as Ahmadinejad lying or not knowing what he is talking about, I think it's safe to say that he has been briefed on the history between the US colonialist government and the world... At the very least between the US and the Muslim world...

I know there have been tensions because Iran is Shia and Afghanistan is Sunni, but even enemies can be friends; at least until their common enemy is neutralized...

Magnum

reply to post by MikeboydUS


since its 1979 its still considerded the 70s

you do know there were two groups during the soviot era fighting?
the moderates and the fanatics which the US and pakistan sponsored

Originally posted by Magnum007

As far as Ahmadinejad lying or not knowing what he is talking about, I think it's safe to say that he has been briefed on the history between the US colonialist government and the world...

Magnum

With that statement, your true agenda is clear.

The U.S. is not "colonialist". If it was, we would not be in the process of removing troops from iraq. Instead, we'd be expanding the military presence there. The U.S would also own Japan, Germany, France, and every island in the Pacific and they'd all be territories or even states.

reply to post by centurion1211


nope, the US just has the largest military prensence in the world
with more bases then anyone else.

Originally posted by illusive man
reply to post by centurion1211

 

nope, the US just has the largest military prensence in the world
with more bases then anyone else.

Which we lease from the host countries WITH their permission.

Example to show the difference:
Britain was a colonial power in the 1700's and 1800's and I don't recall them asking India if it was OK to come in and completely take over the place for a couple hundred years - without any lease payments. Oh, and this is a key point, the UK also referred to India as part of the British Empire.

Sorry, your reasoning is faulty, as well.

You may not like the U.S., but just making up the reasons why you don't is not sound thinking.

Originally posted by centurion1211
The U.S. is not "colonialist". If it was, we would not be in the process of removing troops from iraq. Instead, we'd be expanding the military presence there. The U.S would also own Japan, Germany, France, and every island in the Pacific and they'd all be territories or even states.

Think hegemony not empire. That is a more accurate description.

Originally posted by illusive man
reply to post by centurion1211

 

nope, the US just has the largest military prensence in the world
with more bases then anyone else.

And the reason for that is the worlds favorite 911 call is the good old US taxpayer...and we have to have our emergency services in the neighborhood...or be accused of a slow response!

Well I don't like him or his policies, but he's right.

All of the conflicts America has been involved in for the last decade is spending money fighting people that they trained to pull off coups on other countries.

It's truly ridiculous that the US dropped the ball. They had support while training these people to do their bidding and obviously they did their jobs VERY well.

Now they are paying the price of establishing dictator governments in countries of strategic importance.

I'm sure Afghanistan in 20 years will revolt and go against the US as well once real leadership takes hold.

~Keeper

reply to post by Magnum007


Don't. Yes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a very intelligent man but a good man he is not. He is in fact a tyrant. Look at what his own people think of him! Look at the constant protesting of his regime. He is not to be trusted.

I feel sorry for the Iranian people on a daily basis.

Originally posted by belial259

Originally posted by centurion1211
The U.S. is not "colonialist". If it was, we would not be in the process of removing troops from iraq. Instead, we'd be expanding the military presence there. The U.S would also own Japan, Germany, France, and every island in the Pacific and they'd all be territories or even states.

Think hegemony not empire. That is a more accurate description.

So, having like-minded countries as allies is "bad"?

Also, ALL groups have someone or some thing (country in this case) serving as a leader.

So-called "hegemonies" have existed in one form or another for all of history.

Originally posted by illusive man
reply to post by MikeboydUS

 

since its 1979 its still considerded the 70s

you do know there were two groups during the soviot era fighting?
the moderates and the fanatics which the US and pakistan sponsored

The Communists who seized power in Afghanistan were not moderate.
The Mujahideen arn't fanatics either.

You have to understand the Communists supported by Moscow stood against Islam and any other religion.

reply to post by Magnum007


You are right that we started to support a resistance inside Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion, but only after the government was overthrown by Communists supported by the USSR.

The Saur Revolution (1978)
en.wikipedia.org...

While I don't trust Ahmedinejad at all really- I do think he's right with what he's been saying the past week or two when it comes to whats really going on behind the scenes with leadership in the U.S...

These quotes that are picked up on like "9-11 was created by the U.S." and this one- show me that Ahmadinejad isn't bluffing and has some great blackmail that cannot be pushed away so casually as everything else is. I think he is using this as a deterrent for the US and Israel to attack Iran but frankly, if theres no war over there because of this and he's spitting the truth out- its a win/win situation. However, I cannot imagine that behind the scenes people aren't calling for his head for this...

Its just like that term "Not going down without a fight". You can try and attack me (and probably succeed) but I'll let all your dirty secrets out. Thats the way I see Ahmedinejad with all this news....

AND LET ME BE CLEAR- I am not praising Ahmedinejad at all as he truly is like other politicians (could care less about the good of his people or the world) but clearly he has passed a threshold of fear here that the world remains in when it comes to stating whats really going on like this.





[edit on 3/10/2010 by AceOfAces]

Interesting, US accused Iran for double game, just two days ago.

Let me choose who I am going to believe to...
Iran..US..Iran..US
Oh, free country, Iran, so US is talking B.S.

Originally posted by AceOfAces
AND LET ME BE CLEAR- I am not praising Ahmedinejad at all as he truly is like other politicians (could care less about the good of his people or the world) but clearly he has passed a threshold of fear here that the world remains in when it comes to stating whats really going on like this.

The very fact that Ahmadinejad has the balls to take a stand against the US and its free market global ideal shows that he cares about his people.

You want to know a little known fact? The entire world has been swept by the free market, EXCEPT for North Korea and the Middle East. It is these two regions that refuse to be corrupted by globalization and that makes them a target for American foreign policy.

Do you know what "shock and awe" really means? It's not about loud bombs falling on your home, it is an elaborate strategy to use the American military to decimate a society followed with a second invasion composed of corporate suits who completely privatize and exploit this decimated society. This was the point of the Iraq invasion.

Iran is also in the middle east and it also has its own autonomous economy. This makes it a target of the American empire. Even look at its geopolitical position; it is smack between Afghanistan and Iraq.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


The Middle East has been swept by the free market since OPEC.

Dubai is on the virge of being the next New York City or London.

And anyone wanting attention will stand up to the "Big Bully" US. Its almost cliche that it happens so much.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

The Middle East has been swept by the free market since OPEC.

Dubai is on the virge of being the next New York City or London.

And anyone wanting attention will stand up to the "Big Bully" US. Its almost cliche that it happens so much.

Dubai isn't Iran/Afghanistan/Iraq/Saudi Arabia, now is it? And really, OPEC is just another factor of free trade that is designed to destroy people's natural right to self-sustainability. No wonder why so many people fight against it.

And it is cliche? It looks more like natural reaction to me. I'm sure to an average American, Ahmadinejad must seem just like another cliche, especially after he is filtered through the American media. However, to his people and other people under the same empiracle threat in that region, Ahmadinejad speaks up for what they really care about.

Why would these autonomous people want to have their society and infrastructure raped by corporate agendas? In terms of American foreign policy, this is just considered "democracy". Democracy, delivered in countless bombs. American democracy is more like cleansing of other societies to pave way for American agendas. How could people be so arrogant?