It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


White House : Taliban isn't US enemy

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:45 AM
The CIA worked closely with the Afghan fighters AND worked with Osama "Tim Osman" Bin Laden.

The Reagan admin was doing everything in it's power to keep the Soviets mired in Afghanistan, and without our helping those afghan warlords and "freedom fighters" the Soviets would have mowed them down. Reagan wasn't concerned about the afghans, but wanted to give the Soviets their own little Vietnam. Soviet leader Gorbachev accused Reagan of disrupting peace talks between afghanistan and the Soviets that led the war to go on for another 4 years, and hundreds of thousands of more Afghans died. That's not something you forget. Reagan, the CIA, the ISI in Pakistan created the covert bases for training those 'talibe' fighters, and supplied them with blackmarket Russian-made weapons from Egypt and smuggled them to those bases via a network of underground militant muslims. The "student" (talibe) label was just a cover to get them into Pakistan and trained, without the Soviets seeing our dirty hands in the mix.

We- the United States - ARE the Taliban.

This is called "blowback". The reason why it would blowback aren't hard to see: American expected a lot in return - oil and gas leases, American infrastructure taking over their oil exports, CIA taking over their poppy fields, our pipeline rammed down their throats...

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:55 AM
reply to post by Vitchilo

Of course the Taliban isn't our enemy, but we got to get our Opium from somewhere to supply the drug makers, and users....Its that simple

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:15 AM
Pretty interesting link I found. I haven't seen anyone else post it, but I will post it since it is relevant to this thread.


Don't know the credibility of this site, but I am sure its more credible then FOX and CNN. Lot of interesting stuff
edit on 29-12-2011 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:31 AM

Originally posted by frankensence
The reason why it would blowback aren't hard to see: American expected a lot in return - oil and gas leases, American infrastructure taking over their oil exports, CIA taking over their poppy fields, our pipeline rammed down their throats...

Meanwhile back at the Ranch and Reality....

After years of war, there still arnt any "Oil and or Gas leases" in Afghnistan becuase they have no oil. Not only that, but the "Oil Pipeline" hasnt materialized either. Also, lets ignore the fact that the Taliban were in charge of all the major poppy producing feilds [For Years] in Afghnistan and only cut production when the market was flooded with over production and the price dropped back in 2001 AND that they were in control of those very same provinces most of the war which financed their war effort [From the sale of opium to the Russian Mob] etc etc etc.

Also "Blowback" would vindicate the official 9/11 story. [That is, these people were tired of US intervention in the region and struck back on that date] Are you sure you want to go down that route?

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by frankensence

Your history is actually incorrect despite you sounding like you might actually know what your talking about.

For starter’s the “Tim Osman” clam has been thoroughly debunked the source of that document has been heavily criticised and is not credible, in any case it is one line in a highly questionable document vs hundreds of thousands that say otherwise.

But this is where your history is really wrong, your understanding of operation cyclone appear to follow the same misguided errors that others make. Fundamentally the quickest and simplest explanation of operation cyclone is that it was America providing funds and logistical support to the Pakistani’s so that they could in turn provide this support the Afghan Mujahedeen, the Americans had almost zero contact with the Afghan Mujahedeen. The Arab Mujahedeen (such as Bin Laden) were handled largely by the GID of Saudi and not by the Americans or Pakistanis and as such had even less contact with the Americans than the Afghan Mujahedeen. This distinction is important as you are incorrectly claiming that the Mujahedeen were called “Talibe” (I assume you mean Talib, the plural being Taliban). Earlier on in this thread I provided a link that gives a quick explanation in regard to how the Taliban were formed however you should know that your account that there were formed during the Soviet war in Afghanistan is wrong.

The Taliban never emerged until late 1993 at the earliest by which time the Soviet war had ended as had operation cyclone. And for your information it was also during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that the number of madrassas in Pakistan really exploded under a decree by the then dictator of Pakistan General Zia (it wasn’t the CIA, they had nothing to do with it). The students of these schools were known as Talib’s. In late 1993 Afghanistan was in turmoil and a group of these “talib’s” decided to take action in defending their province of Kandahar from the violence they were subjected to. Then on the 12th of October 1994 they had their first major victory when they took the town of Spin Boldack, this victory was largely ignored by the world press however the BBC world service picked up on the win and sent a reporter to investigate. When the reporter as who this rag-tag group where there leader responded by saying “we are Taliban” meaning a group of Talib, that evening the BBC reported that the group responsible for the win were called “The Taliban”. After this the name just stuck, despite the fact that rather than the Taliban leader calling his group “the Taliban” he was referring to his men as a collective of Taliban (the ploural of talib).

There was no real blowback because the Americans never set up the Taliban, it is true that they may have had a hand in training some of its membership and that it some of the guns in the Taliban’s hands originated after operation cyclone they did not directly set up the group. There was never a oil pipe line although there were some discussions, Afghanistan has no oil, America did not take over the infrastructure and under the Taliban poppy production in Afghanistan fell to a all time low.

Your definition of blowback is also wrong I think, it’s not the expectation of desirable by-product as the result of covert action as your post appears to suggest but rather an unexpected by-product not envisaged by the perpetrators of the covert action, usually negative. Blowback is unexpected not expected as you have said in your post.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:17 AM
I can give an example of "blowback". It would be suggesting that Muj try shooting down HINDs (Mi-24 "flying tank" gunships) -which were flying nap of the Earth - with RPG-7s. That worked, forcing them to fly higher and announce their presence earlier (an RPG is good for about 500 meters), then flying US helicopters into Mogadishu, a few years later, where every aspiring warlord has his very own RPG and a vested interest in keeping guardians away from their pillaging of donated foodstuffs.

See, the mujaheddin added that tactic to their repertoire, and spread it to other fighters (in particular the "Arab Mujaheddin"), who spread it to others, such that it eventually got to Somalia. That's "blowback" - it is an unforseen negative consequence of a positive action.

When the Mi-24's started flying higher to avoid the RPGs, it necessitated supply of Stingers, because Stingers are also anti-tank rockets, but they have an effective range that is a factor of 10 longer than RPG-7s. That forced the HINDs to fly even higher, making them even less effective. Having to supply Stingers could also be considered a form of "blowback", since we never got them all back, and they were never all used against the Soviets. They then presented a danger to commercial flights by bandits who got their hands on the surplus.

The formation of the Taliban can't be considered "blowback", because the US didn't have a hand in that formation. One of the requisites of "blowback" is that it "blow" negative consequences "back" on the initial actors. Since the US had no activity in forming the Taliban, there was no "back" action.

I'm thinking there is a good possibility that this twisted definition of "blowback" came straight out of Hollywood, not from any real intelligence community definition.

Another thing - you are correct in saying that the Americans had nearly NO contact with the Afghan Mujaheddin per se when we speak of official government-connected Americans. There were a fair number of Americans on the ground inside Afghanistan, but none of them could be tracked back to the US government in any official capacity. They were "mercenaries" in a manner of speaking, "volunteers" to some, because the Afghans were not paying wages to fighters. The Afghan resistance was not accepting any non-muslim "volunteers", so Americans going in had to either be muslim, or be able to pass for muslims for the most part. The bulk of their activity was intelligence gathering and training of mujaheddin, and smuggling back out captured Soviet equipment, more than actual fighting. They were the ones to bring back across the border the first AK-74 ammo to be seen in the west, the first RPG-18 anti-tank rockets (Soviet copies of the M72A2 LAWS rockets) and the first butterfly mines to be seen and verified in the west.

Training of the mujaheddin was not an easy task - they had been fighting for a couple thousand years already, and figured that there wasn't anything they could be taught. They were hard-headed like that. Some of the training took, some of it didn't. That's why most of the Americans were engaged in intelligence gathering. The only training that really took was technical in nature, rather than tactical, like how to use some of the foreign equipment, rather than how to set an ambush.

Some of the training went the other way, too - for example, some Americans learned how to halt a Soviet tank column with rocks and logs, effectively dropping a mountain side across narrow roads to stop them. If you block both ends of the column like that, you've got a stationary shooting range. No where for the targets to go, and no way to get there.
There was a lot of that sort of thing going on in the Panjshir, in Massoud's AO. That's why the Russians never took it, and why the Taliban never did either. Indirectly, that is why AQ assassinated Massoud on behalf of the Taliban - it was quid pro quo to remove a thorn from the Taliban side and open the Panjshir to them, but it was too little, too late.

There were other nationals on the ground inside Afghanistan, too, whom one would not normally consider muslims. For example, I know of a Polish national who was KIA in the northwest part of the country. Remember that Poland was a Soviet satellite at the time. He hated Soviets with a passion because of their interference in Polish affairs, and just wanted to kill Soviets.

He died doing what he loved. Who could ask for more?

edit on 2011/12/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:30 PM
In this world, it is often better to have friends than enemies.

It's not in the wordings, or its twists, but simply realities.

The Taliban had been an enemy, for their mistake in the support and hiding of Jihadist hell bent on mass murder of Planet Earth's humans.

Today, perhaps, the Talibans had seen the errors of their ways, and wish to change for the better. No doubt not many in the world would welcome their brand of Islamization of a nation, BUT so long as they no longer hurt or harm innocents, forswear terrorism or support of unjustified Jihadism, they should be given a chance to forgiveness, just every human who is only flawed and had erred.

Their grouse is with USA is only the seemingly 'Invasion' by the moron republican Bush of their territory, when that invasion was meant to destroy the murderous and blasphemous Jihadists hiding in Afghanistan. The misunderstanding occurred sadly, but just like any other mistakes made by both sides, corrections can be made so that progress can happen.

This is no longer a case of 'negotiating' with the terrorist. Al Queda and its offshoots, no matter how many or how long, will be brought to face justice one way or another so long as mankind lives, for there is NO justification for the murders of innocents under any law, sovereignity or civilise society.

The Taliban, is NOT Al Queda, and will be given the benefit of the doubt for the sake of peace, and so long as they forswear support terrorism in any form, they will not be enemies of mankind till they prove otherwise, and will share the fate of Al Queda.

May the Taliban be wise, and for the sake of innocents, live and let live. It's the People that matters, not the idealogy. If the People accepts their brand of idealogy, it will be their choice and consequences to bear. If not, it will be their sacred choice to excercise the right that all free human is given by birthright on Planet Earth - to voice out.

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:47 PM

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by frankensence
The reason why it would blowback aren't hard to see: American expected a lot in return - oil and gas leases, American infrastructure taking over their oil exports, CIA taking over their poppy fields, our pipeline rammed down their throats...

Meanwhile back at the Ranch and Reality....

After years of war, there still arnt any "Oil and or Gas leases" in Afghnistan becuase they have no oil. Not only that, but the "Oil Pipeline" hasnt materialized either.

Afghanistan has oil. I suppose after the Taliban turned on their masters and enablers in Washington the new face-saving excuse from our politicians and repeated by their mouthpieces in the media is that they never had oil - except they do.

China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) has just signed a contract with them to develop 3 oil fields along the Amu Darya river.

China’s National Petroleum Corporation became the first foreign company to tap into Afghanistan’s vast oil and gas reserves. Chinese officials have estimated that the deal could be worth at least $700 million, but some say China could earn up to 10 times that.

Afghanistan: The Route to Riches

As the war in Afghanistan unfolds, there is frantic diplomatic activity to ensure that any post-Taliban government will be both democratic and pro-West. Hidden in this explosive geo-political equation is the sensitive issue of securing control and export of the region's vast oil and gas reserves. The Soviets estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at 5 trillion cubic feet - enough for the United Kingdom's requirement for two years - but this remains largely untapped because of the country's civil war and poor pipeline infrastructure.

Oil & Gas Journal
US Geological Survey that estimated Afghanistan’s mean undiscovered resources at 15.7 tcf of gas, 1.6 billion bbl of oil, and 562 million bbl of natural gas liquids (TCF = trillion cubic feet)

“Afghanistan is entering onto the world stage with regards to hydrocarbon extraction, and the major players are taking notice,” Wahidullah said, adding the country had 16 tcf of gas reserves and 600 million bbl of condensate.

Wahidullah’s figures are based on a 2006 study by the US Geological Survey that estimated Afghanistan’s mean undiscovered resources at 15.7 tcf of gas, 1.6 billion bbl of oil, and 562 million bbl of natural gas liquids (OGJ Online, Mar. 27, 2006).

But what's really important is what was thought back in the 80's/90's about Afghanistan - it was thought Afghanistan sat on 2.6 triilion bbl of oil, and not only did it have untapped reserves of oil/gas, but it was of monumental strategic importance to secure it as a means of accessing oil and gas in South and Central Asia - and one of the bog reasons for planning the pipeline.

Global Economy- The oil behind Bush and Son's campaigns

"US influence and military presence in Afghanistan and the Central Asian states, not unlike that over the oil-rich Gulf states, would be a major strategic gain," said V R Raghavan, a strategic analyst and former general in the Indian army. Raghavan believes that the prospect of a western military presence in a region extending from Turkey to Tajikistan could not have escaped strategists who are now readying a military campaign aimed at changing the political order in Afghanistan, accused by the United States of harboring Osama bin Laden.

It was never about getting Osama Bin Laden. It was about using him as yet another excuse to raid yet another country.

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:10 PM

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Your history is actually incorrect despite you sounding like you might actually know what your talking about.

For starter’s the “Tim Osman” clam has been thoroughly debunked the source of that document has been heavily criticised and is not credible, in any case it is one line in a highly questionable document vs hundreds of thousands that say otherwise.

Then maybe you should start a thread where you show how "Tim Osman" has been thoroughly debunked. Meanwhile:

Osama Bin Laden is Tim Osman a CIA operative
Osama Bin CIA Agent
When Osama Bin Laden was 'Tim Osman'
(Michael Riconosciuto & Ted Gunderson's 1986 Meeting with 'Tim Osman' (Osama bin Laden))
Who is Osama Bin Laden?
US taxpayers send billions to our enemies in Afghanistan
1998 interview with Osama
Bin Laden's CIA roots
CIA agent allegedly met Bin Laden in July 2001
Osama bin Laden falsities

As Pentagon Releases Details Of Osama Compound, Iran Claims bin Laden Killed Due To Risk Of Leaking Joint US-Al Qaeda Operations

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:31 PM
When it comes to who created the Taliban, listen to Zbigniew Brzezinski, who started Op Cyclone in 1979. According to former CIA director Robert Gates, Americans were there in Afghanistan 6 months BEFORE the Soviet invasion.

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Brzezinski, known for his hardline policies on the Soviet Union, initiated in 1979 a campaign supporting mujaheddin in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which were run by Pakistani security services with financial support from the Central Intelligence Agency and Britain's MI6. Part of the CIA program was led by its elite Special Activities Division and included the arming, training and leading of Afghanistan's mujahideen.[30] This policy had the explicit aim of promoting radical Islamist and anti-Communist forces to overthrow the secular communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan government in Afghanistan, which had been destabilized by coup attempts against Hafizullah Amin, the power struggle within the Soviet-supported Parcham faction of the PDPA and a subsequent Soviet military intervention.

How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Both Brzezinski and Gates writes in their memoirs that the Kabul Afghan government of 1979 was very pro-Soviet. US interventionism would change all that - and we went straight to the most radical islamic bloc in Afghanistan. We supplied the money, the arms, and the training as well as military strategy, to ensure that the Soviets would be mired into a Vietnam quagmire. We set up the arms pipeline from Egypt using a network of militant blackmarket dealers, we worked with the ISI in Pakistan to create the training bases hidden from Soviet awareness as a place where the Mujahadeen (and later Taliban) could train. Is it any wonder that Osama Bin Laden would return to Pakistan when he had to hide from his new enemy (us)?

From Ahmed Rashid’s TALIBAN: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia

Freedom Fighters: Taliban

What Rashid points out is that the core, founding leadership of the Taliban did indeed form part of the anti-Soviet mujahidin struggle. In particular:
  • Mullah Omar
  • Mullah Mohammed Hassan Rehmani, the former Taliban Governor of Kandahar, “a founder member of the Taliban…considered to be number two in the movement to his old friend Mullah Omar”
  • Mohammed Ghaus, former Foreign Minister
  • Nuruddin Turabi, former Justice Minister
  • Abdul Majid, former Mayor of Kabul
  • and to that list we can add, Mawlawi Jalaluddin Haqqani, much in the news lately.

There's no way to deny the Taliban, our supposed "sworn enemies" who "hate us for our freedoms", owe their existence to the United States.

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:34 AM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Is there any shred of TRUTH, based upon sworn testimonials in court over what you had posted? NONE.

BUT, here being a conspiracy site, it is always good to leave no stone uncovered. Possibility and Plausibilities perhaps, long suspected by many anyway, but no one ever knows.

However, even if what you posted is true, before rendering judgements, you MUST be aware of the situation then that called for such dealings. You CANNOT simply make a judgement Today, under Today's world circumstances, and pronounce sentence.

You would have to put yourself back into the shoes of then world just before Russia's conquest of Afghanistan in order to render an honest judgement.

Cold war was at its height. Nukes were growing, alarming tests conducted worldwide, commies shaking hands and gaining more supporters around the world. The worse was a hungry Bear, with its economy closed to ruin. They decided to make a grab for oil, the most precious resource in the world, not for humanity, but ONLY for themselves, BY FORCE.

If the Free world had done nothing, the price of oil will be beyond the 99% masses and poverty will be worldwide, with Commie Russia dictating to the world ruled by the repressive and brutual KGB fear and its nukes.

As Afghanistan was a free country then, there were those whom have no wish to served under Russian rule, after suspecting the initial flirtation by russian with the secular rulers then, worse, being religious, would never buckle under the oppression of the godless russian gov. They cried for help, and the free world responded. Thus, the aid to the fighters against the Russians for 20 years.

By the standards then, had the free world done wrong?

It seems wrong today, more so with those fighters biting the hand that fed them once aid was cut when the russian war was over by killing innocents under the cover of illegal and unauthorised Jihad, with oil is flowing at a reasonable price to the world, including even for the russians,whom were lucky enough to discover oil later.

Afghanistan would have to work hard, just like every nation on Earth, to develope socially and economically, more so after the free world had ended russian domination for them. But national pride, ego and refusal to develope it themselves, they wanted the gravy train to continue, to keep themselves in power instead of sharing it, just like today's Pakistan Military shadow rulers.

And when they dont get it, they used force, far worse than the russians, for they murdered innocents to spread terror. May the Taliban disavow such tactics forever or face the wrath of humanity, as talks begin for a responsible footing to the independce of Afghanistan.

However, back then in the face of Bullying Commie Domination, it was the ONLY thing to do, And a lesson to be learnt by world leaders. Not that we should not give aid to oppressed masses fighting against bullies, but to make sure that there are guarantees that they will behave internationally responsibly when the fight is won and respect human rights.

edit on 1-1-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:23 AM

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Meanwhile back at the Ranch and Reality....

After years of war, there still arnt any "Oil and or Gas leases" in Afghnistan becuase they have no oil. Not only that, but the "Oil Pipeline" hasnt materialized either. Also, lets ignore the fact that the Taliban were in charge of all the major poppy producing feilds [For Years] in Afghnistan and only cut production when the market was flooded with over production and the price dropped back in 2001 AND that they were in control of those very same provinces most of the war which financed their war effort [From the sale of opium to the Russian Mob] etc etc etc.

Also "Blowback" would vindicate the official 9/11 story. [That is, these people were tired of US intervention in the region and struck back on that date] Are you sure you want to go down that route?

Blowback: Bin Laden, the CIA and US war against Afghanistan

Compiled by Richard Sanders,
Coordinator, Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade

Blowback is the term that the CIA uses to describe a situation when a some operative, a terrorist, or some situation that they've created gets out of their control and comes back to haunt them. It's a situation where the scientist (Frankenstein) creates a monster that "blows back" on its creator.

Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden are all pretty good examples of blowback. They were all nurtured for many years by the CIA, the US military or military intelligence. They all eventually "blew back."

Below you'll find some background on the CIA war against Afghanistan. More research is needed on bin Laden's connection to the CIA and it's counterparts in Pakistan. Does anyone out there have time to spend a few hours finding the info on bin Laden's CIA connections? It would be very useful to dig that info up. You'd think people might want to know this guy's connection to US-sponsored terrorist groups.

Here are some basic facts on the context from which bin Laden emerged. All but one of the following articles are from COAT's issue on the CIA (#43) (January 2001: A People's History of the CIA: The Subversion of Democracy from Australia to Zaire)

Also "Blowback" would vindicate the official 9/11 story. [That is, these people were tired of US intervention in the region and struck back on that date] Are you sure you want to go down that route?

No, it wouldn't vindicate the official 9/11 story - not that you and your friends here in this thread aren't doing a splendid job of reciting the official CIA-sanctioned government version of recent history concerning Afghanistan. Blowback in the Muj/Taliban minds were planting IEDs along roads, driving a bomb-laden truck into a marine base, or loading some explosives on a raft and trying to hit a ship in a harbor in their part of the world. Not hijacking jet liners in America with box-cutters while CIA agents helped them get their visas and making the impossible flight trajectory into the Pentagon, where coincidentally they hit the one portion of the building that was being used to investigate billions in missing funds. THAT part of the "blowback" was the part nurtured along by our own intelligence community - the part that keeps the "war on terror" at the forefront of our news media.

I would have elaborated just how wrong you were on the oil in Afghanistan but Blackm already did that. Remind yourself of this: the reason the Soviets invaded was oil. The reason WE invaded was oil. Within a 10-year time frame TWO major superpowers invaded Afghanistan.

What's funny about that is it was the Chinese who won - they negotiated in good faith for those oil and gas leases, and didn't use military intervention to get what they wanted.

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Read up on the history of Afghanistan, something none of these posters in this thread seem willing to acknowledge - the Mullahs in that region had always been fighting among themselves, long before the Soviets invaded. Each of them were fighting a civil war of sorts against each and RESISTED the Soviet-backed Afghan government based in Kabul's attempt to educate women (gee, sounds like the Taliban attitude, doesn't it - oh wait, I forgot that didn't exist until 1996?). It was after these same Mullahs attacked and killed several dozen Soviet advisers that the Soviet red army invaded. The CIA was already present before the Red Army invaded, we were already on the ground and stoking the flames of radical islam, teaching and training radical muslims and providing those same people who didn't want to educate women with money and arms and a clandestine "network" to fight a war of terror against those godless commies.

Did it work? Sure did. Except those radical muslims didn't like the USA much better than the Soviets. Hence "Blowback".

Pre-1979-1989, Afghanistan: The CIA's Biggest Covert War

By Mark Zapezauer

During the Reagan years, the CIA ran nearly two dozen covert operations against various governments. Of these, Afghanistan was by far the biggest; it was, in fact, the biggest CIA operation of all time, both in terms of dollars spent (US$5 to US$6 billion) and personnel involved.

Its main purpose was to "bleed" the Soviet Union, just as the U.S. had been bled in Vietnam. Prior to the 1979 Russian invasion, Afghanistan was ruled by a brutal dictator. Like the neighboring shah of Iran, he allowed the CIA to set up radar installations in his country that were used to monitor the Soviets. In 1979, after several dozen Soviet advisors were massacred by Afghan tribesmen, the USSR sent in the Red Army.

The Soviets tried to install a pliable client regime, without taking local attitudes into account. Many of the mullahs who controlled chunks of Afghan territory objected to Soviet efforts to educate women and to institute land reform. Others, outraged by the USSR's attempts to suppress the heroin trade, shifted their operations to Pakistan.

As for the CIA, its aim was simply to humiliate the Soviets by arming anyone who would fight against them. The agency funneled cash and weapons to over a dozen guerrilla groups, many of whom had been staging raids from Pakistan years before the Soviet invasion. For many years, long after the Soviets left Afghanistan, most of these groups were still fighting each other for control of the country.

One notable veteran of the Afghan operation is Sheik Abdel Rahman, famous for his role in the World Trade Center bombing.

The CIA succeeded in creating chaos, but never developed a plan for ending it. When the ten-year war was over, a million people were dead, and Afghan heroin had captured 60% of the U.S. market.

Source: Excerpted from CIA's Greatest Hits
CIA's Greatest Hits - Afghanistan

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:57 AM
reply to post by frankensence

My previous post is just as valid for the reasons on why the 'supposed' support for the muslims happened.

Remember always, it is the People of the sovereign land that decides how they wish to live, and live with the consequences of their own choices. Freedom can never bestowed upon, but won, so that it may forever be treasured and cherished, or if granted by others, it will only be taken for granted.

The russians had made the grevious error to invade Afghanistan, and its true intentions were certainly NOT for an end to the discrimination of women and education there. The russians were a economically tottering regime then, having overspent on armaments and the space race without a care for their own starving masses, just as the China CCP gov is now doing. They only and truly wanted Afghanistan for its oil, nothing more, nothing less. Anything else are mere sideshows excuses.

After the russians fled, the Free world made no imposition on the freedom fighters, but allowed them to form their own governance, but a choice they rejected and wanted more aid to keep themselves in power just as pakistan military regime is doing today, of which no nation can grant, considering the fact that the afghans had all the wealth in the world underground, and only needs a FREE people, with full human rights to tap, progress and evolve.

Right or wrong, the past had happened and cannot be changed. The Taliban would be considered amongst the most organised force there, and would stand a good chance for peaceful election to happen, be elected, or to be booted out fairly if their brand of theology appeals to no one, and must never enforce it upon the masses by force.

Not even the good prophet Muhammad, the mortal who brought Islam to them, had forced anyone to convert when he descended out of the cave to bring his teachings to his fellow arabs. It was only when he had won the majority's support and conversion on their own free will did he ensured those then barbarians living in the Arab world to submit to our common Creator and know His love for all mankind with a better guide for civilisation, including arabs, better.

Thus too, must the Taliban be, if they truly worship and obey the guidings by our common Creator, the Supreme Being known by many names across time and space, and be the role model with good deeds and honest sincere logical persuasion that the prophet Muhammad was, that made others look upon and with their own free will, know Allah.

edit on 1-1-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 04:10 PM
In this grotesque carnival, the US military's contractors are forced to pay suspected insurgents to protect American supply routes. It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting. And it is a deadly irony, because these funds add up to a huge amount of money for the Taliban.

"It's a big part of their income," one of the top Afghan government security officials told The Nation in an interview. In fact, US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of the Pentagon's logistics contracts--hundreds of millions of dollars--consists of payments to insurgents.

Understanding how this situation came to pass requires untangling two threads. The first is the insider dealing that determines who wins and who loses in Afghan business, and the second is the troubling mechanism by which "private security" ensures that the US supply convoys traveling these ancient trade routes aren't ambushed by insurgents.

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 04:49 AM
According to this BBC documentary most of the hysteria over terrorism is done to keep the powers that be in charge:

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:27 AM
1. Today, the Taliban was reported that they are ready for talks with US provided US releases its commander from Gitmo.

2. Afghan President Karzai was against such a move and had scuttled the deal, because:-
a. He claims that Taliban group in Quatar's office is not representative of the entire loosely held Taliban contigent, whom are more often made up of differing and warring tribes.

b. He does not trust any of the Taliban, espacially after they murdered a leading peace-talk official, and a muslim cleric at that.

c. Behind the written lines, he fears the support of USA for an opposition group fully capable of taking over his role.

3. a. Karzai must understand USA is democracy, and supports differing political parties so long as peaceful ones within a state, even in its own country.

If the Taliban offers peace and willing to lay down armed warfare and end support for Jihadism, USA is a free soveriegn nation to see how it can resolve the issue of nation hood for the Afghan People, with at least a call for free elections after it leaves Afghanistan, having achieved its sole aim of FIGHTING TERRORISM and destroying the command structure of international Jihadism.

b. Kazai's gov isnt exactly clean. There were rumours and evidences of corruption in high places. It must clean its own act if it wishes to represent our fellow human brothers and sisters in Afghanistan.

He better learn the lesson USA learnt during the Vietnam war. USA realized too late that it had been supporting the corrupted Saigon regime all along, and pulled out when the truth was known. America is willing to change in order to correct errors to progress. So too will USA dump Karzai IF his corruption stinks to the high heavens.

4. USA should release the Taliban commander from Gitmo and even give aid, but ONLY PROVIDED:-
a. The Taliban vows no more to Jihadism or its support for death against innocents.
b. Show proof that they are indeed representative of the Taliban majority.
c. REVEAL EVERY Jihadist's names that they had supported in the past, so that they may be brought to justice.

or else....NO deal. USA will deal with terrorism on its own with its much improved tech and connected world today.
edit on 3-1-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 12:46 PM
In Afghanistan today, many of our fellow human brothers and sisters there live in fear.

There are reports even of them dressing up as Talibans, in order not to be molested, harrassed or even shot at.

This is nothing more than the incalculation of fear into the masses. The Taliban had ruled through fear. This is oppression of the highest order, similar to what Stalin did the russian people in his time. Stalin was a devil. Only the devil uses such instruments to rule.

Thus, the Taliban, whom pride to represent the moral authority of Allah, must look at what they had done to their own society and ask themselves - Are themselves the devil?

Evil had never won. USSR ended. Even the Arab Spring to end tyranny is now in full swing. Oppression will not last, even if mankind wanted it. It is against everything that our common Creator had created us for.

Our common Creator had NOT ruled by fear, but only by love by giving us life and free will. He gave us the freedom to choose, to make mistakes, so that we mankind will know what is good and bad, and return to His wise path for us all, in time, freely, inorder to progress and grow.

Our common Creator is eternal, and have far more patience than man, thus, if our journey of self reflection based upon free will takes a longer time, who's time had we used up? Our Creator's, or the impatient Muslim Cleric's?

Therefore, is love for Allah better, or fear of Allah better for a civilisation to progress?

The good prophet Muhammud left no heir, even though he had all the time in the world to do so, only for reason. And that reason is that we humans are flawed beings and easily corrupted by power. Put a man as leader and he will attempt to be God, misusing Allah's name to destroy all good, performing what he wishes, misinterpretating and twisting Allah's word for his own glory instead of the Most High, as those after the prophet Muhammud had proven, espacially the despicable Ottoman Empire that ruled for centuries.

The pure concept of Anarchy - each man ruled by his own conscience based upon holy guidance without any mortal in between, to harm and hurt no one with each contributing to society, was what the prophet Muhammud had attempted to teach. Unfortunately, power mad lusting greedy leaders and clerics twisted those elevating concepts to what it is today.

We humans may not be ready for the concept of Anarchy, for we are still far too flawed, as events after the passing of the good prophet Muhammud had proven, but with patience and time, one day we will achieved that aim and loving our Creator than to live in fear of Him, misusing His Name to fool, hurt and harm others to achieve one's own mortal desires and greed.
edit on 3-1-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 07:03 AM
al qaeda is the group Osama bin Laden led.The taliban is a islamic fundamentalist religious group led by Mullah qaeda was invited into Afghanistan by Omar.They set up training camps there and prepared for 9/11.This enabling of al qaeda makes the taliban an accessory to the 9/11 attacks.That was the reason to go into Afghanistan and route out those responsible for 9/11.We should have left there long ago.To think Afghanistan is a nation is ridiculous.Bring our troops home & let's spend our money here.

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:30 AM
Actually, Dubya's war against the Taliban wasn't a very good idea.

Yes, the Taliban were extremist Muslims and, yes, they mostly got along with Osama Bin Laden, but ....

In Afghanistan, Osama's people were mostly foreigners (mostly Saudis and Egyptians), who spoke Arabic but not Afghani, and their presence was an irritant to most Afghanis. On the other hand, the Taliban were native Afghans, who spoke the local languages and were related to ordinary Afghan families; if the Taliban were extreme or even crazy, they were still family. The Afghans wouldn't have minded a US effort to drive Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, since Al Qaeda was alien to them, but they minded very much when we went after their wild-eyed cousins and uncles in the Taliban.

At the time Dubya sent our troops into Afghanistan, he had Laura tell the TV audience how rotten the Taliban treated women. That was supposed to be a motivator. If treating women badly was grounds for invading a country, how come Dubya never invaded Saudi Arabia or Iran?? Instead, we bit off more than we could chew by going into Afghanistan to fight the native Taliban as well as the alien Al Qaeda.

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in