White House : Taliban isn't US enemy

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


I think he just reiterated the statement in disbelief. This Mullah Omar was a fighter for mujahideen and probably met at the WH when the Mujahideen were fighting the Soviets. He later formed the Taliban, which seems to be a bit more fundamentalist radical although both were religion. It doesn't mean they are the same organization, but they may have similar ideas about Jihad.
I do remember seeing video clips of the Taliban shooting down women in the square for such things as not wearing their burkhas. That is certainly a bit extreme.




posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Mullah Omar never met with Reagan. That photo you showed earlier in the thread were of members of the Afghan Mujahideen and they consisted of various ethnic groups. In regards to the Taliban, they were not around in the days of that photo.

Former Pakistani Officer Embodies a Policy Puzzle


Once the Soviets were pushed out, the Taliban emerged and Colonel Imam, then serving as a Pakistani consular official in Afghanistan, provided critical support to their bid to rule the country, Western officials said.


The article above is about a retired Pakistani military officer who was trained by the US and assisted both the Mujahideen and later the Taliban. That small sentence above, should indicate for you that the Taliban was not an organization during the years of the Afghan/Soviet War and the picture in the Oval Office with President Reagan. The Taliban formed in Pakistan by Afghan students with Pakistani support to capitalize on the power vacuum which ensued after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.

Pakis tan's 'godfathers of the Taliban' hold the key to hunt for bin Laden


. . . the ISI is credited with fostering and nurturing the Taliban movement in the mid 1990s. It is also believed to have had access to bin Laden himself in the past.


With all due respect, your timeline is off and others have offered substantial information to clear that up. Yet, you continue on with your information as if it is correct? Look up some of the stuff others have posted, and you will see that your chain of events is significantly off. I am only commenting about the photo you presented. President Reagan left office when the Taliban was forming in the midrasas in Pakistan. To be fair, maybe some in the photo became Taliban later, but at the time they did not go by that moniker. Quite distorting history.
edit on 20-12-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
How does that change anything? Mullah Omar, founder of the Taliban, met with Reagan, and would later meet with Texas representatives. He was on the receiving end of a lot of aid from the USA before he was labeled an enemy. Even as late as 2002 the Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden but that offer was ignored.


Any sources on this? I doubt the Taliban were in posession of Bin Laden at any time. Now the ISI/CIA being in close contact with Bin Laden makes more sense.
edit on 20-12-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


If I really wanted to I could take the Robin cook quote and blow it out of the water and put you back at square one, but I won’t, the reason that I won’t is because I know that regardless of what I say you are going to be convinced that Al’qa-ida was a CIA creation and Bin Laden was their man. Go read a history book and stop entertaining ignorance and taking using quotes like that to deny over half a century’s worth of history. I

Also with regards to that quote of mine I was making a flippant remark about a comment on the first page by a member claiming the Taliban had disbanded in 1996.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


If I really wanted to I could take the Robin cook quote and blow it out of the water and put you back at square one, but I won’t, the reason that I won’t is because I know that regardless of what I say you are going to be convinced that Al’qa-ida was a CIA creation and Bin Laden was their man. Go read a history book and stop entertaining ignorance and taking using quotes like that to deny over half a century’s worth of history. I

Also with regards to that quote of mine I was making a flippant remark about a comment on the first page by a member claiming the Taliban had disbanded in 1996.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

www.reaganfoundation.org...




www.reaganfoundation.org...

Still looking for "Appendix C", which is the list of the meeting attendees...

ETA: This is how charlatans rewrite history. The meeting took place in 1983, but people have falsely stated it was two years later. There is even a news video, onto which someone has superimposed the incorrect date, as 1985.
edit on 20-12-2011 by WTFover because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


I am still waiting for veteran groups and military brass to back the VP's statement.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Kovenov
 

Military Brass has to face military enlisted at some point in time. On something this far into the realm of WRONG, even facing lower ranking officers would be a problem for them if they come onboard and outright back these statements.

I'd guess the military leadership takes the attitude of 'If there is nothing good to say, say nothing at all'...and does what they're ordered to do.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Well if they share their drug money with powerfull families in the US and the crown in England, they cant be the enemy.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

www.reaganfoundation.org...




www.reaganfoundation.org...

Still looking for "Appendix C", which is the list of the meeting attendees...

ETA: This is how charlatans rewrite history. The meeting took place in 1983, but people have falsely stated it was two years later. There is even a news video, onto which someone has superimposed the incorrect date, as 1985.
edit on 20-12-2011 by WTFover because: (no reason given)



There was no such thing as a Taliban until the Afghanistan’s civil war in the wake of Soviet troops’ withdrawal in 1989, after a decade-long occupation. But by the time their last troops withdrew in February 1989, they’d left a nation in social and economic shards, 1.5 million dead, millions of refugees and orphans in Iran and Pakistan, and gaping political vacuum that warlords attempted to fill. Afghan mujahideen warlords replaced their war with the Soviets with a civil war.


History of the Taliban: Who They Are, What They Want

You are correct sir.
edit on 20-12-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


So we'll continue to pretend the Taliban sprang out of the ground in 1996, they never existed prior to that, right?


The Taliban was formed in 1994. It never existed before that. 1996 was the year they usurped power in Afghanistan, not the year they were formed by the Pakistani ISI.



It was all peaches and cream until one day the Taliban dropped out of the sky.


Argumentum ad absurdum. Carries no weight at all.



Mullah Omar WAS the Taliban, he didn't just wake up one day and decide to become a fundamentalist.


Omar was a puppet of ISI. it doesn't matter how many times you repeat the phrase "Mullah Omar WAS the Taliban" - simple repetition will never make it true.



He led the faction that murdered off the saner part of the Mujaheddin in their civil war,


Say what? There were no muj in the Civil War. You may not understand what "mujaheddin" are. There were various factions and warlords jockying for position, but no muj. That's like calling a US Army Ranger Company "confederates" because it's based in Georgia, which used to be a Confederate State.



ETA: much of your argument is based on when the Taliban were diplomatically recognized as the power in Afghanistan (1996), but your ignoring how long their movement had been building.


It had been "building" since it's creation in 1994 in Pakistani madrasas by the Pakistani ISI. It seized Kabul in 1996, but NEVER, at any point, controlled more than 60% of Afghanistan's area.



I would hazard a guess that had the Taliban been more agreeable to our pipeline deal, that the 'war on terror' would have gone on ignoring their relationship with Bin Laden and no invasion would have been launched by the US against Afghanistan.
edit on 20-12-2011 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)


Exactly so. That is a "guess", and a hazardous one - not to mention fantastical. "If" is a mighty big word to be so short, and means next to nothing. "If" frogs had wings, they probably wouldn't go along bumping their asses on the ground.

The thing is, frog DON'T have wings, and we'll never know for sure how they would handle having them.

I suppose we can "hazard guesses", though.

What IS, IS. Not a hell of a lot else matters.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
The point of those photos and videos is to highlight the hypocrisy of the United States. We supported the Mujahedin, the Northern Alliance, the Taliban when it suited us, even when there was incontrovertible evidence of any of those factions supporting Al-Qaeda or anti-Western terrorism. George W. Bush cut a deal with the Taliban in 2001, giving them $43 million as a GIFT.

Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban


Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-US terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush Administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.


Bush was only following the precedent set by Reagan, who dedicated more material aid to 'terror' groups than any other administration. One of his principle benefactors was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose name appears in the credits in the photo, the BBC has a profile of him here.

Reagan's outreach to radicals in Afghanistan was the Reagan Doctrine;


It was called the Reagan Doctrine. In the eyes of Reagan officials bent on rolling back the Reds everywhere, Afghanistan exemplified the phrase "communist domination." By the time the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, the U.S government had lavished $3 billion in arms on the rebels, who, during the bloodiest days of the war, were downing an average of one Russian helicopter gunship per day.

"These weren’t American weapons," said Rohrabacher. "By and large, it was done with Russian equipment bought from Egypt or one of the other states that was once allied with Russia but was now friendly to us. About the only American weapons they had were the Stinger missiles."...

... the majority of U.S. military-aid recipients were unsavory, even unstable characters. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which coordinated the efforts on the ground in Afghanistan, was never very choosy about who got arms.

Roughly half the weapons the CIA supplied went to fundamentalist Afghan leader Gulbeddin Hekmatyar—"one of the most stridently anti-Western of the resistance leaders," according to Mary Ann Weaver’s May 1996 article in The Atlantic Monthly. Another arms customer was the blind Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, later convicted of involvement in the 1993 botched bombing of the World Trade Center. Oh, and Osama bin Laden, the man whom George W. Bush says was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

During the Afghan war, the Saudis were, as they are today, doing America’s bidding on the world stage. The CIA-at the behest of a White House, Congress and American media completely united in helping the Afghan rebels-was calling the shots. It is a fact Rohrabacher himself has acknowledged in the recent past.

"I witnessed this in the White House when U.S. officials in charge of the military aid program to the mujahideen permitted a large percentage of our assistance to be channeled to the most anti-Western, nondemocratic elements of the mujahideen," said Rohrabacher in an April 14, 1999, official statement on U.S. policy toward Afghanistan.

Rohrabacher saw firsthand evidence to support his claim. In November 1988, having just been elected to Congress, Rohrabacher took off on his first trip to Afghanistan. The anti-Soviet war was still raging as Rohrabacher set off on a five-day hike with an armed mujahideen patrol from Pakistan into eastern Afghanistan.

"We at one point in that march came across a camp of tents," Rohrabacher said of his visit to Jalalabad, then under siege by the Afghan rebels. "I was told at that point I must not speak English for at least another three hours because the people in those tents were Saudi Arabians under a crazy commander named bin Laden and that bin Laden was so crazy that he wanted to kill Americans as much as he wanted to kill Russians."



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
We can pretend all day the Taliban "didn't exist" until 1993, but the seeds for their formation were sown in the American imperialism and interventionism of the 80's and 90's.

Among those Reagan and Bush provided material aid to:
Profile: Gulbuddin Hekmatyar


Former mujahideen leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is one of the most controversial figures in modern Afghan history.

A former prime minister, he is remembered chiefly for his role in the bloody civil war of the 1990s.

Mr Hekmatyar is currently in a tenuous alliance with the Taliban, although both sides remain suspicious of each other.

In 2003, the US state department designated him as a terrorist, accusing him of taking part in and supporting attacks by al-Qaeda and the Taliban.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 



HEY MARXIST TRAITOR IN THE WHITEHOUSE:







And in other Whitehouse news:

--up is down
--good is evil
--evil is good
--left is right
--right is left
--in is out
--out is in
--. . .
. . .



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Well, while you are pretending...

Pretend that no one or no group or no country has ever taken anything of value from the U.S., with contingencies or in exchange for promises of a change in behavior, only to retract their side of the bargain; or have a change in leadership with different views and/or positions.

Hint: Practically every time we give aid to countries or groups with values different from our own. Hence, my belief in the mantra, America should be the friend of liberty everywhere, but guardians only of our own.

My belief is that we are the extorted, at least as often as we are the extorter.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
We can pretend all day the Taliban "didn't exist" until 1993, but the seeds for their formation were sown in the American imperialism and interventionism of the 80's and 90's.

Among those Reagan and Bush provided material aid to:
Profile: Gulbuddin Hekmatyar


Former mujahideen leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is one of the most controversial figures in modern Afghan history.

A former prime minister, he is remembered chiefly for his role in the bloody civil war of the 1990s.

Mr Hekmatyar is currently in a tenuous alliance with the Taliban, although both sides remain suspicious of each other.

In 2003, the US state department designated him as a terrorist, accusing him of taking part in and supporting attacks by al-Qaeda and the Taliban.


You should give up for the following reasons:

1. your dates have changed from 1996, to 1994, to 1993, because you really have no idea what you're talking about and just use whatever dates the next man with a link posts.

2. you've already had your ass handed to you by 3 other members who clearly have a better grasp than you.

3. you're starting to show your age..



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The 21st century will be a American Asian century as described by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama...it's propaganda being produced by the White House so the US can secure it's foothold in the vast Muslim Nations which make up a large part of their strategy..

Can't go around talking bad about last years enemies, have to be sure to secure the vast amounts of Central Banking opportunities in the Region.

This is also why the US and Japan have proposed a Southern Corridor to secure trade routes and to make money.

While all the while leaving the US open for a possible attack from extremist.
edit on 21-12-2011 by Daedal because: Edit



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I can see the neocons are out in force, to distance the Great Orator from the role he and his state department had in creating the Taliban "enemies". The Reagan Doctrine and US imperialism had as much an impact on motivating anti-Americanism in the Mid East as anything else. Even with evidence of Bin Laden's connection to them we still gave them millions and negotiated for oil pipelines.

Those "Afghan fighters" Reagan was meeting with would go on to become the "Taliban fighters", different name, same people. "Freedom fighter" then because we used the excuse of a dying Soviet Union to push a massive expansion of the military budget and imperialist policies throughout the Mideast, the seeds were sown.

"I witnessed this in the White House when U.S. officials in charge of the military aid program to the mujahideen permitted a large percentage of our assistance to be channeled to the most anti-Western, nondemocratic elements of the mujahideen," said Rohrabacher in an April 14, 1999, official statement on U.S. policy toward Afghanistan.

The Obama WH is only finally admitting that the Taliban were made into an enemy by us, to suit our agenda - we funneled arms and money to the most virulent anti-Western of the Mujaheddin, invited them to Washington and sat them down to meet with Unocal, it was only AFTER they rejected our overtures that we decided they were "enemies" worthy of invasion. And among the first acts our invading army engaged was to install a former Unocal adviser as "president" of their nation.

The scary part is that many neocon voters know nothing of the stuff Reagan/Bush supported in the middle east, africa, and Latin America. The creation, protection and expansion of global markets, their involvement with corrupt dictators willing to sell their country's resources and political autonomy out.

It started in the early 20th c. as so well documented by Smedley Butler in "War is a racket", we watched it peak with the puppet regime of the Shah of Iran and that country's rejection of American Imperialism. We saw how willingly Reagan and Bush I were to get in bed with Saddam Hussein, as Mary Ann Weaver’s writes, a "softening of the globe" to the flow of capital is a dirty business at best.

Pseudo-Conservatives are blinded to the quasi-socialism involved in a single global economy managed by one superpower, financially and especially militarily. We use the WTO, the IMF, over 800 US military bases worldwide, and global banking to coerce compliance. The conservative base can't even fathom this notion because globalist capital controls the MSM and reshapes history as needed. Grover Norquist and his "Reagan Legacy Project" is all about cherry picking Reagan's legacy, ignoring the uncomfortable associations between the Orator and tyrants and dictators and Mujahadeen "freedom fighters", or how black budget funding went to Iran or anti-American "freedom fighters".

If there hadn't been oil or a planned pipeline for Afghanistan, those "freedom fighters" would have been as easily dismissed as the Kurds under Hussein or Assad, slaughtered and ignored. But they had oil, and lay along a strategic pipeline route - thus, no matter who the Afghan fighters were, how anti-American they were, they were going to be our new best friends. Taliban? That's a face-saving label slapped on those same freedom fighters when they spurned our offers. If they HAD accepted our offers, if Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, or Mullah Omar had agreed to the pipeline, even as they continued bombing our bases and ships, we would still be calling them Freedom Fighters and Mujahadeen and not Taliban terrorists or enemies.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
The point of those photos and videos is to highlight the hypocrisy of the United States. We supported the Mujahedin, the Northern Alliance, the Taliban when it suited us, even when there was incontrovertible evidence of any of those factions supporting Al-Qaeda or anti-Western terrorism. George W. Bush cut a deal with the Taliban in 2001, giving them $43 million as a GIFT.


Since you are wrong about the timeline of the formation of the Taliban, here's a chance for bonus credit. When was AQ formed? That will have major impact on your contention that Reagan supported AQ.



Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban


Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-US terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush Administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.



I'm genuinely curious. If the Taliban is as bad as all this, why are YOU still supporting them? Nevermind Bush - he's out of office now. Why are YOU arguing in support of them? Is it just the "anti-american" aspect they provide now? You know, throwing your lot in with the lesser devil and all that?

I noticed this 43 mil was for poppy eradication - why would they support poppy eradication if the CIA is supposed to be selling them, as so many uniformed people claim? Wouldn't that be a lot like cutting their own throats? Seriously - pick ONE story, and stick to that! Both in opposition can't be true.



Bush was only following the precedent set by Reagan, who dedicated more material aid to 'terror' groups than any other administration. One of his principle benefactors was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose name appears in the credits in the photo, the BBC has a profile of him here.


WHICH "terror groups" did Reagan aid? Surely you can come up with a few if he were all THAT supportive of them. Gimme names. Hekmatyar doesn't count as a "terror group". He's an Afghan warlord who changes sides more often than most Americans change underwear. He's like John Kerry - he was AGAINST the Taliban before he was FOR it. Hekmatyar was in the Northern Alliance until they retook Kabul and he saw that he wasn't going to be King of Afghanistan. It was then he switched support to the Taliban, still jockying for power, still aiming for a kingship.



Reagan's outreach to radicals in Afghanistan was the Reagan Doctrine;


It was called the Reagan Doctrine. In the eyes of Reagan officials bent on rolling back the Reds everywhere, Afghanistan exemplified the phrase "communist domination." By the time the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, the U.S government had lavished $3 billion in arms on the rebels, who, during the bloodiest days of the war, were downing an average of one Russian helicopter gunship per day.


Yeah, those Mi-24 HINDS were a terror. Several were shot down. I seriously doubt it was one a day, though. That would be a lot of damned HINDs. The first I know of being shot down was near Jalalbad, just north of Tora Bora. It was splashed by a Stinger missile in a demonstration of their potential. Before long, the HINDs were being forced to fly higher, where they couldn't be shot down as easily, and where they could be seen coming miles away. No more of the nap-of-the-Earth flying that had made them such terrors up until then. That was the turning point of the war, when the Soviets started sticking to their bases and getting all buttoned up. Crippled CAS for their patrols cramped their style.

Nowhere in your quote does it support the contention that support for the muj WAS the Reagan Doctrine. The Reagan Doctrine was against Soviet expansionism in general, not Afghanistan-specific.




"These weren’t American weapons," said Rohrabacher. "By and large, it was done with Russian equipment bought from Egypt or one of the other states that was once allied with Russia but was now friendly to us. About the only American weapons they had were the Stinger missiles."...


The Egyptian equipment was Egyptian production, not Russian. It consisted of a few thousand Maadi AKMs. You could tell the difference by looking at the selector markings. Russian AKMs were in Cyrillic, Maadis in Arabic. We got a crap load of Chinese AKs and sent them in, too. Never hear much about that now, though. That's the idea behind "covert" war - you don't use weapons that can be tied to your own country. The Stingers were a special case - no one else had anything comparable that could do the job, so it had to be US Stingers.

Ever seen an RPG-18? They look and work just like a US M72-A2 LAW. Can't tell 'em apart from a distance, until you can read the markings. RPG-18s, however, were Soviet copies - first used in Afghanistan, perhaps coincidentally?

Afghans were using a LOT of captured Soviet gear as well. At one time there was a booming market in captured Soviet gear that was first showing up on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Western intel was buying it up as fast as it could be smuggled out, but most remained in Muj hands for practical use, rather than being sold for intel analysis. The first case of N74 ammo for AK-74's was smuggled out by mercenaries. Afghans would have killed them for that ammo, but it was needed for intel analysis, so it got tossed across the fence. "Poison bullets", the Afghans called them, because someone hit with one rarely survived long enough to get medical assistance. They wanted to turn that back on the Soviets.



Roughly half the weapons the CIA supplied went to fundamentalist Afghan leader Gulbeddin Hekmatyar—"one of the most stridently anti-Western of the resistance leaders," according to Mary Ann Weaver’s May 1996 article in The Atlantic Monthly. Another arms customer was the blind Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, later convicted of involvement in the 1993 botched bombing of the World Trade Center. Oh, and Osama bin Laden, the man whom George W. Bush says was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.


Hekmatyar wasn't "anti-western", he was "anti-anyone who didn't support him coming out on top". He was MIGHTY friendly to anyone who gave him weapons. Not so bin Laden. Bin Laden refused any western support, or any he even THOUGHT might be western. he brought his own money and money-making aparatus with him. Both bin Laden and Abdel-Rahman were "foreign muj", not Afghans.



During the Afghan war, the Saudis were, as they are today, doing America’s bidding on the world stage. The CIA-at the behest of a White House, Congress and American media completely united in helping the Afghan rebels-was calling the shots. It is a fact Rohrabacher himself has acknowledged in the recent past.


The extent of Saudi involvement amounted to laundering US funds through the Saudis to Pakistani ISI, who then skimmed large chunks of cash off the top before passing the dregs on to the muj.



"I witnessed this in the White House when U.S. officials in charge of the military aid program to the mujahideen permitted a large percentage of our assistance to be channeled to the most anti-Western, nondemocratic elements of the mujahideen," said Rohrabacher in an April 14, 1999, official statement on U.S. policy toward Afghanistan.


Rohrbacher didn't "witness" jack. ISI was the outlet at that end of the pipeline, and ISI decided where the money went - after they hijacked THEIR "cut", of course.



Rohrabacher saw firsthand evidence to support his claim. In November 1988, having just been elected to Congress, Rohrabacher took off on his first trip to Afghanistan. The anti-Soviet war was still raging as Rohrabacher set off on a five-day hike with an armed mujahideen patrol from Pakistan into eastern Afghanistan.


Seriously? Several US congress critters wanted to go into Afghanistan, and were not allowed to. Think of the repercussions if a US Congressman were killed on the ground INSIDE Afghanistan at that time! Even Charlie Wilson only went inside a couple of times, and not very far even then. He was restricted to firing a Dashika across the border from Pakistan generally, which waas iffy enough.



"We at one point in that march came across a camp of tents," Rohrabacher said of his visit to Jalalabad, then under siege by the Afghan rebels. "I was told at that point I must not speak English for at least another three hours because the people in those tents were Saudi Arabians under a crazy commander named bin Laden and that bin Laden was so crazy that he wanted to kill Americans as much as he wanted to kill Russians."


At least that much is right, although I have no idea where Rohrbacher actually got the story. Bin Laden WOULD have killed Americans if he thought he could get away with it, and would in no way even accept "tainted" money that he thought may have originated in the US.

BTW, bin Laden only went into battle one time that I'm aware of, for about a half-hour, just so he could mark "combat" on his resume. Even in that case, he didn't shoot anything off but his mouth into a radio from a safe distance from the actual fighting. Bin Laden's main contribution was in construction and "public works", not combat.

He sure got plenty of combat later, after he'd bitten off more than he could chew and was laying down lead in retreat, though!




edit on 2011/12/21 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
As long as the taliban or any political group that seeks to lead the majority of mankind within a nation honestly in words and in action disavowed terrorism, in any form including the misuse of theological or secular beliefs, they are NOT the enemies of USA or mankind.

Taliban may seem to be radical in its way, with its often insane 17th century backward returning sharia law impositions, but that is the way this political party has made itself to be. If the masses voted for them in a free and fair election, then it is the masses choice which NO other human can that mandate away, unless that party starts to murder innocents fellow human brothers and sisters.

It is the choice of the masses, both male and females, if the taliban with its idealogy, so long as is peaceful that hurts and harms no one, is the masses choice. They will have to be responsible for the choices - its successes, or its mistakes, in order to learn the next time around, if not for their own sakes, but for the sake of their next generation.

May our fellow human brothers and sisters in Afghanistan be wise. All the best!





top topics
 
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join