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
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
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
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
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)