Peace talks with Taliban in Afghanistan have begun, US confirms., page 2

reply to post by Paulioetc15

---

The US and a few other nations recognized the Northern Alliance as the official Government of Afghanistan. Not the Taliban, The Taliban's Islamic Emirate received recognition only from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates While the Northern Alliance and Taliban were in a civil war. The Northern Alliance AKA "The Islamic State of Afghanistan" were the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan.

They were the ones who kicked the Taliban to the street with the help of US special forces and Air-power in the first place.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Paulioetc15

---

The US and a few other nations recognized the Northern Alliance as the official Government of Afghanistan. Not the Taliban, The Taliban's Islamic Emirate received recognition only from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates While the Northern Alliance and Taliban were in a civil war. The Northern Alliance AKA "The Islamic State of Afghanistan" were the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan.

They were the ones who kicked the Taliban to the street with the help of US special forces and Air-power in the first place.

Yes i know that the US and a few other nations recognized the Northern Alliance as the official Government of Afghanistan. Except Pakistan of course it led to support the Taliban in the 90s and for what they are today. Even the killing of Bin Laden in their country proves that they are untrustworthy worth of an Ally. They even arrested five informants that helped the CIA to help locate where Bin Laden location are.

Originally posted by -W1LL
Strange I thought the the US was talking to the Taliban since the 80's

Yeah, well, ya thought WRONG, but that's what happens when folks are willing to believe whatever they hear.

In the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms and money, and the ISI helped gather radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviet invaders.[189] Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. "By 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war."
Source

Don't know where that's from yet, but I can tell you it's chock-full 'o fallacy. I'll check the link later.

ISI didn't provide jack but intrigue and theft. There were damn few "foreign volunteers" in the muj, as a percentage. Probably never over 24,000 total, even at the height of things, and many of those were support staff, rather than trigger-twitchers. Afghans have a severe mistrust of foreigners, and don't play well with them when it comes to coordinating a fight. There were better than a quarter million muj, to contrast that. One guy I know of was from Poland, and I don't think he was even a muslim - he just wanted to kill Russian, and faked the islamic credentials necessary. He died there, killing Russians as he wished. I don't think anyone has ever died any more happily.

Bin Laden wasn't a key much of anything, either. At the time he was little more than a bit player. He couldn't organize a one horse parade. What he DID do was build stuff. The "upgrades" at Tora Bora were his brainchild. It wasn't quite as sophisticated as they though when we overran it, though... , but to be fair, those facilities WERE close to 15 years old when the US rolled it up. Russians never DID get a toehold there, and to be honest it surprised me the way the US just cut right through it.

I laughed out loud at the assertion that there were 65,000 tons per year of US MADE weapons and ammo entering the country. That crap had to be smuggled across the border from Waziristan on donkey back. Sure, there was a lot of foreign weaponry filtering in, but not 65,000 tons a year, and most definitely not US MADE. Stingers were about the extent of US hardware going in, and there was a hot debate about even that, since it pretty much FUBAR'ed any plausible deniability. Most of the stuff going in was Egyptian and Chinese AKs, And Chinese ammo for the AKs. A few odds and ends of mortars, mines and grenades about rounded it out. It wasn't really much if a high tech wart, as high tech wars go, and the highest technology that I know about were the Stingers and some ATGM's, both of which were a pill to try to train a muj how to use.

One thing I DID notice in the snippet you quoted there was that the Taliban was nowhere mentioned in it, and so I'm at a loss as to where you get a curious notion like "I thought the the US was talking to the Taliban since the 80's". In point of fact, there WAS no Taliban in the 80's. They didn't come around until 1994-1996, under the tutelage and with the support of the ISI. Matter of fact, most of the original members were Pakistani, from Pakistani madrasas. "Taliban" means "students", plural of the singular "talib", student.

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by Grey Magic

---

Authentic hadith about Surah 9 (which tells the story of the battle of Badr) state that it's revelation is related to the battle of Badr. The only references of explicit violence in the Quran are in relation to the wars the Muslims faced after they were driven out of Mecca (Badr being the first and one of the largest). These are all subject to the verses before where it states that they are not allowed to be aggressive (i.e. start a war) and that they are bound by Islam to seek peace as soon as their enemy does.

Narrated Said bin Jubair I asked Ibn 'Abbas regarding Surat-al-Anfal. He said, "It was revealed in connection with the Battle of Badr."

edit on 20-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: added quote

edit on 20-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)

Battle of Badr.

How much do you know of the Battle of Badr?

If you know anything at all of it, how can you say " they are not allowed to be aggressive (i.e. start a war)"? You didn't actually keep a straight face when you made that pronouncement, did you?

Tell me, at the Battle of Badr, who were the caravaneers, and who were the caravan raiders? Is it a normal thing in YOUR world for merchants to attack brigands with no reason, thus giving said brigands "just cause to fight in the way of allah"? In my world, merchants usually avoid raiders if they can - it's bad for business, and causes losses, both monetarily and otherwise.

Merchants don't much care for monetary losses.

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by SLAYER69

---

The Taliban was formed in 1994 by Pakistan ISI intelligence. In fact, Mujadhideen and Taliban are different groups, not the same. Some fought with them and some joined the Taliban but most who joined the Taliban are mostly Pakistani.

Exactly!

Have you guys ever heard of Ahmed Shah Massoud? He was one of the people that fought against the Soviets in the 80s and he opposed the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in the 90s when he fought against Bin Laden. Two days before 9/11, he was killed in the explosion by a suicide bombers.

Indeed I HAVE heard of him. His AO was the Panjshir Valley. He was even called "The Lion of the Panjshir" by some, and truly he WAS the "meanest mother in the valley". The Russians NEVER took the Panjshir. He was assasinated two days before 9/11 to tie up loose ends. AQ did the hit, at the behest of the Taliban, because they knew hell was about to break loose, and they couldn't have an effective like Masud running around loose. He was allied with the Northern Alliance, and was already fighting against the Taliban. They knew they were in deep dookey if the US came in after 9/11 and liased with Masud, throwing support to him.

As it turned out, they were in pretty deep crap any how, even WITHOUT Masud around.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by SLAYER69

---

The Taliban was formed in 1994 by Pakistan ISI intelligence. In fact, Mujadhideen and Taliban are different groups, not the same. Some fought with them and some joined the Taliban but most who joined the Taliban are mostly Pakistani.

Exactly!

Have you guys ever heard of Ahmed Shah Massoud? He was one of the people that fought against the Soviets in the 80s and he opposed the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in the 90s when he fought against Bin Laden. Two days before 9/11, he was killed in the explosion by a suicide bombers.

Indeed I HAVE heard of him. His AO was the Panjshir Valley. He was even called "The Lion of the Panjshir" by some, and truly he WAS the "meanest mother in the valley". The Russians NEVER took the Panjshir. He was assasinated two days before 9/11 to tie up loose ends. AQ did the hit, at the behest of the Taliban, because they knew hell was about to break loose, and they couldn't have an effective like Masud running around loose. He was allied with the Northern Alliance, and was already fighting against the Taliban. They knew they were in deep dookey if the US came in after 9/11 and liased with Masud, throwing support to him.

As it turned out, they were in pretty deep crap any how, even WITHOUT Masud around.

edit on 2011/6/21 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

What are you talking about btw? I think as of now, we cannot even defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda because the ideology never goes away. I think they are getting weak now and the Afghan people will be disappointed if they got back to Taliban rule. No one want to get stoned to death for not wearing a veil or anthing under their vcious rule. Afghanistan is a damn mess right now due to NATO bombing and Taliban killing. Ahmed Shah Massoud could have been around right now with al lthe support he has for NATO. Has he bveen around, he would have been called corrupt too.

reply to post by nenothtu

---

I'm afraid you haven't read an accurate history of the battle of Badr.

The caravan in question wasn't just some group of innocent merchants, it was lead by one of the Muslims' main persecutors Abu Sufyan and guarded by one thousand of the armies of Mecca who had declared war on Muhammad and his followers and saw the caravan as an ideal oportunity to engage in open conflict with the Muslims. The caravan and the people leading it and who owned it were the same people who drove the Muslims out of Mecca.

Bear in mind that the Meccan tribes were persecuting, attacking and killing the Muslims for years before their emigration to Medina, the fleeing of the Muslims to Medina and the situation of war and the threat from the Meccan tribes was really grounds enough from a purely military perspective for the battle given the amount of troops sent to reinforce the caravan led by Abu Sufyan.

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by nenothtu

---

I'm afraid you haven't read an accurate history of the battle of Badr.

The caravan in question wasn't just some group of innocent merchants, it was lead by one of the Muslims' main persecutors Abu Sufyan and guarded by one thousand of the armies of Mecca who had declared war on Muhammad and his followers and saw the caravan as an ideal oportunity to engage in open conflict with the Muslims. The caravan and the people leading it and who owned it were the same people who drove the Muslims out of Mecca.

Bear in mind that the Meccan tribes were persecuting, attacking and killing the Muslims for years before their emigration to Medina, the fleeing of the Muslims to Medina and the situation of war and the threat from the Meccan tribes was really grounds enough from a purely military perspective for the battle given the amount of troops sent to reinforce the caravan led by Abu Sufyan.

edit on 21-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)

Well then, I suppose it's perfectly acceptable for the raiders to attack the caravan of merchants without provocation, then! I stand corrected!

Seriously - if the caravan had attacked Medina, it would be a different story, but I'm hard pressed to justify an unprovoked assault on a passing caravan, and that is precisely what the Battle of Badr was, regardless of how one tries to dress it up and put lipstick on it with retroactive "justifications".

Even if, as you assert, the caravan was "bait" from Abu Sufyan, the muslims took that bait, as any decent predator will do. Personally, I'm not very good as a predator, because I'm always wary of baits. All I can really say about it is that I wouldn't take a bait that would let all of history know that I had a predatory nature. One must be careful of how posterity will view him, in spite of short term gains of riches.

Of course Mecca sent guard for the caravan! That's the prudent thing to do when transferring valuables through bandit country!

reply to post by nenothtu

---

Heres a short narrative of the battle, it wasn't a raid on a caravan.

The battle began with champions from both armies emerging to engage in combat. Three of the Ansar emerged from the Muslim ranks, only to be shouted back by the Meccans, who were nervous about starting any unnecessary feuds and only wanted to fight the Quraishi Muslims. So Hamza approached forward and called on Ubayda and Ali to join him. The Muslims dispatched the Meccan champions in a three-on-three melee. Hamza killed his opponent Utba, Ali killed his opponent Walid ibn Utba, then after Ubayda was wounded by his opponent Shayba, Ubayda then killed him. So this was a victorious traditional 3 on 3 combat for the Muslims.

It's important to remember that the city states of Medina and Mecca were at war, this wasn't an unprovoked raid, it was a meeting between two armies.

ETA:

Also as a disclaimer I'm not trying to drag this discussion on or start arguements but there is alot of incorrect information on these historical events so I think it's at least courteous of me to give a counter-point or two.

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by nenothtu

---

Heres a short narrative of the battle, it wasn't a raid on a caravan.

Here's a somewhat longer narrative of how it started, and the reasons for it:

In the spring of 624, Muhammad received word from his intelligence sources that a trade caravan, commanded by Abu Sufyan and guarded by thirty to forty men, was traveling from Syria back to Mecca. Abu Sufyan sent a message via Damdam, in fear of being attacked by Muslims, to warn Mecca and to get reinforcements. As the trade caravan was carrying a lot of wealth, the Quraish responded well to the call, and an army of 900-1000 men was sent for its protection.
[edit] The march to Badr

When Muhammad received the news of the Meccan army, he called his companions and asked his companions to help him in the battle,some of these companions were Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali, Hamza, Mus`ab ibn `Umair, Az-Zubair bin Al-‘Awwam, Ammar ibn Yasir, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari. The Muslims also brought seventy camels and two horses, meaning that they either had to walk or fit three to four men per camel.[3] However, many early Muslim sources indicate that no serious fighting was expected,[4] and the future Caliph Uthman stayed behind to care for his sick wife Ruqayyah,the daughter of the Prophet.[5] Salman the Persian also couldn't join the battle, as he was still not a free man.[6]

Many of the Quraishi nobles, including Amr ibn Hishām, Walid ibn Utba, Shaiba, and Umayah ibn Khalaf, joined the Meccan army. Their reasons varied: some were out to protect their financial interests in the caravan; others wanted to avenge Ibn al-Hadrami, the guard killed at Nakhlah; finally, a few must have wanted to take part in what was expected to be an easy victory against the Muslims.[7] Amr ibn Hishām is described as shaming at least one noble, Umayah ibn Khalaf, into joining the expedition. [8]

By this time Muhammad's companions were approaching the wells where he planned to either waylay the caravan, or to fight the meccan army at Badr, along the Syrian trade route where the caravan would be expected to stop or the meccan army to come for its protection. However, several Muslim scouts were discovered by scouts from the caravan[9] and Abu Sufyan made a hasty turn towards Yanbu.[10]

Source

It sure does sound like a raid on a caravan - but one that the Meccans could see coming, and tried to prepare for. As I said before, guards in bandit country are a prudent measure, and reinforcements when an attack is expected imminently is an even more prudent measure.

It's important to remember that the city states of Medina and Mecca were at war, this wasn't an unprovoked raid, it was a meeting between two armies.

It's also important to remember that history is written by the victors, and Islam is just about the sole source of information on the battle. To their credit, they only try to spin it, rather than re-writing it altogether. Yeah, it was a "grand victory", just as they state, but it's also true that it never needed to be fought at all, and never would have been had they not been in search of easy plunder. Spin applied later does nothing to change the basic narrative, and indeed to their credit the muslims have not even tried to change the basic facts - only applied spin in the aftermath to spin it up into what they wanted to convey.

ETA:

Also as a disclaimer I'm not trying to drag this discussion on or start arguements but there is alot of incorrect information on these historical events so I think it's at least courteous of me to give a counter-point or two.

edit on 21-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: to add.

edit on 21-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)

No problem. I'm not really arguing (when I do that, it's pretty unmistakable), and I do appreciate your counter points. It would be a truly one-dimensional world if we all agreed all the time.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Every post I have read thus far on this thread has had some kind of error. I am new here and don’t really know how best to go about pointing each error out......

OtherSideOfTheCoin Registered: 22-6-2011

Welcome aboard...

You are right many aspects have been left out. However as a newish member one shouldn't judge other members contributions to the subject/topic by the contents of one thread. {This one} Many of us have been over this topic for years and have covered the book you mentioned and as well as many other supposed self-described qualified sources on the topic.

Having said that. You are right about wikipedia. The only reason I used it was because another poster chose to use it in the first place so I pointed out the discrepancy in their version of events using their own source.

So what I am going to do is advise you all to read a book, not Wikipedia, not some random website that claims to have a “expert view” just pick up a book. “Taliban” by James Fergusson......

Appreciate the interest. I'd advise you to familiarize yourself with the ATS Search feature here..... Lot's of great threads written, argued and discussed in detail over this very topic by some great members going back years.

Or you could just ignore me and get back to what you were all arguing about.

I appreciate the feedback.
Thanks for tossing in your 0.02

Alert: Possible Terror-related activity in NW Ohio
  Posted 11 days ago with 45 member flags

\'Bin Laden died of natural causes\'
  Posted 9 days ago with 17 member flags

Insider Information - Contractors in Iraq/Afghanistan, crimes against humanity
  Posted 15 days ago with 9 member flags

Was it a drone that almost caused mid-air over Denver?
  Posted 11 days ago with 9 member flags

U.S. government smear campaign against reporters exposing the drone wars
  Posted 14 days ago with 8 member flags

CIA/Mossad plan to NUKE NYC July 4th, 2012 or 2013 Times Scare "Ball Drop"?
  Posted 19 days ago with 7 member flags

Chicago Hospitals Prepare for MAY 20-21 2012 NATO Summit \'Bomb\' Attack, Martial Law \'Red Zone\'
  Posted 12 days ago with 6 member flags

US shadow war in Horn of Africa revealed by blogger
  Posted 12 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: