US President Meeting with the Taliban

I have gone over a couple of your threads while lurking here on ATS, I am kind of disappointed with this. I understand your message, I guess, though it seems quite distorted, and not as obvious as you probably were hoping it would be.
Like I said, I understand the point you were making.
Also I am reminded of the quote "keep your friends close and your enemies closer".

Regardless of whether or not that applys in this instance.

Originally posted by GAOTU789
Historical accuracy isn't that important eh?

The Taliban as an entity weren't in existence in 1985. They came about as an orginazied entity after the Soviets left.

edit on 11-8-2012 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)

There are some other Afghanistan experts who can explain more.

The Taliban was the force which was helped to stand against Russia.

But they were not called Taliban at that time.

Facts do seem to be an endangered species in some quarters here lately. I'm kinda disappointed here as another post already expressed. To not only OP the thread with a premise that is factually impossible by sheer dates but then defend the bad position to the end...is disappointing indeed.

I'd really like to point out here that there were TWO sides in Afghanistan when the United States returned in late 2001. The Taliban and the Northern Alliance. The men in the OP photograph may have survived the Soviets. They may even have survived the civil war that followed and the chaos it brought. That is what directly spawned the Taliban, to my understanding and extensive reading over the years. They absolutely did NOT exist prior to the Soviet withdrawal anymore than Al Qaeda did.

If those men survived, and others seem to know the background of the individuals better than I for the odds of that, I would imagine they were living well inside the Northern Alliance lines of control in 2001, as I imagine that photo alone could have gotten them a trip to the Stadium where no games were played.

How anyone can figure the Taliban of all people would submit to ANYTHING, let alone control by the United States or any outside power is baffling. Simply being devout Muslim isn't good enough for those folks. You need to be the right side, sect and tribe too. I'm very certain we don't have any Americans they would have worked with beyond the time required to get whatever they were after...and I'm not sure they could have been trusted for security even THAT far.

Now? ugh.... Yeah.. Right.. We run the enemy who's been killing us for 10 years. That is quite a trick there!

Thank you Pro for the opportunity to get a handle on the Taliban-US Establishment connection.

I must say that you tend to state your position a few clicks farther into certainty than I would.

It appears to me that without President Reagan (or the puppet masters), the Taliban would not have been as strong and independant as it was in the early 1990's. All I can make out about the Taliban is that it covers one way or another for a group of zelous people who could plausibly be a terrorist gang.

Hard to say who did what when everybody is staying under cover or trying to leave.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Yes, our government specifically the CIA created or trained the Taliban. Who cares about specifics though? Our government is trash no matter who is in power.

Originally posted by mideast

Originally posted by GAOTU789
Historical accuracy isn't that important eh?

The Taliban as an entity weren't in existence in 1985. They came about as an orginazied entity after the Soviets left.

edit on 11-8-2012 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)

There are some other Afghanistan experts who can explain more.

The Taliban was the force which was helped to stand against Russia.

But they were not called Taliban at that time.

They were not called the Taliban because they are completely different group. The people who chased the Soviets out then became warlords and fought each other creating complete chaos. The Taliban started with some radical students who rose to up to bring order with strict Islamic law and and fought and beat most but not all of the former groups that had fought the Soviets. The Taliban also allowed other groups to operate from its borders in return for support against the Northern Alliance, one of those groups was al qaeda. So no they are not the same group or even related.

"In Afghanistan, the freedom fighters are the key to peace. We support the Mujahadeen. There can be no settlement unless all Soviet troops are removed and the Afghan people are allowed genuine self-determination.
(Applause.) (7th State of the Union speech)

“To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. Their courage teaches us a great lesson—that there are things in this world worth defending. To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors.”

(March 21, 1983.r reagan)


"Reagan was generous in his praise — in the context of a speech about the “freedom fighters,” he dedicated the space shuttle Columbia to the people of Afghanistan:"
zeroanthropology.net...

Originally posted by GAOTU789
Historical accuracy isn't that important eh?

The Taliban as an entity weren't in existence in 1985. They came about as an orginazied entity after the Soviets left.

edit on 11-8-2012 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)

Learn what Taliban means then maybe you will understand who created them.

Children were brainwashed in Afghan/Pakistan borders in schools created by US and its Gulf pawns. This isn't a secret, the reason why they are called "Taliban" is because they were "Students", hence that's what Taliban means.

Note - The vast majority of Taliban are just normal people, students who studied in the wrong school, they were unfortunate. That being said, the vast majority are good people, pious people, something which can never be said about US politicians.

If they weren't pious and honest, they wouldn't have fought the almighty US, if they weren't pious, they would have bowed down to US like the Gulf nations, and the Taliban could have created castles in Afghanistan for their members, their families, like the Gulf Monarchs, with 100% protection of the almighty USA, for an indefinite period of time.

Originally posted by mideast


There are some other Afghanistan experts who can explain more.

The Taliban was the force which was helped to stand against Russia.

But they were not called Taliban at that time.

They were, they were always called the Taliban, because they were students in "madrassas" created by US and its Gulf pawns.

Please, everyone needs to read a little history, or at least talk to someone who has been in the center of the biggest proxy war in history.

There are a lot of Afghans who live outside Afghanistan, millions in fact, if you don't want to read, then I'm sure it won't be that hard to find an Afghan and talk to.

reply to post by insaan

There are some other Afghanistan experts who can explain more.

I know some people from Afghanistan on ATS.

That is why I said that.

+ I had talked to some Afghans in my country. They are not informed well about that period of history.

please be more kind.

I know about their schools and the Arab Wahhabi supporters of Taliban ,too.

The civil war absolutely did spawn the Taliban and initially, the people universally loved it, by reports. Chaos and the law of the warlord and gun with no justice for anyone that wasn't taken by force. That is what the Taliban brought order to, initially anyway. Thats the image that reached the West then and books support it. Books from folks who were there and lived it.

The Taliban are NOT nice people. In fact, I believe they are among the most evil people to have held Government power anywhere in modern times. However, don't take my word on anything for why. There is a very well respected, awarded and established Investigative Reporter and Human Rights Activist who has been in and among it all from way back when people were in Kabul were calling each other Comrade. Jan Goodwin first arrived in Afghanistan in 1984 and reported extensively on Afghanistan through the Occupation and Taliban years.

I put some real effort into finding a voice on this that was as close to acceptable to everyone as can probably ever be had.

As Sohaila, completely covered in the shroud-like burqa veil, was forced to kneel and then flogged, Taliban "cheerleaders" had the stadium ringing with the chants of onlookers. Among those present there were just three women: the young Afghan, and two female relatives who had accompanied her.

These Friday circuses, at which Rome's Caligula would doubtless have felt at home, are to become weekly fixtures for the entertainment-starved male residents of Kabul. Now that "weak officials" have been purged from key ministries, says the city's governor, Manan Niazi, who like many of the regime's officials is also a mullah, the way has been cleared for such displays. "We have a lot of such unpunished cases, but the previous civil servants didn't have the courage to do what we are doing. These people have now been replaced, and these events will continue."

(This is the stadium I mentioned in another post. The stadium where no games were played. It was built, as I recall, from UN funds for sports and culture)

Earlier that same week, three men accused of "buggery" had been sentenced to death by being partially buried in the ground and then having a wall pushed over on them by a bulldozer, a bizarre and labor-intensive form of execution dreamed up by the supreme leader of the Taliban, the 36-year-old Mullah Mohammad Omar.

(That would be the crime of being Gay, by the way. Homosexuality was a capital offense)

One woman had the top of her thumb amputated for the crime of wearing nail polish. And when the Taliban castrated and then hanged the former communist president and his brother in 1996, they left their bloodied bodies dangling from lampposts in busy downtown Kabul for three days. Photographs of the corpses appeared in news magazines and newspapers around the world.

(real swell fellows there. Gadaffi got off easy by comparison and I think the people who murdered Gadaffi that way are animals)

The Taliban regime claim they are restoring Afghanistan to the "purity of Islam," and the Western press invariably parrots them. But authorities in a number of Muslim countries insist that few of the regime's dictates have a basis in Islam. And just as the U.N. has denied the Taliban a seat in the General Assembly, so too, the Organization of Islamic Conference, a 55-country body, has withheld both a seat and recognition from the regime. "The Taliban is not the image the Islamic world wants to project," says one Muslim diplomat. And with good reason.

Source for above material (It's a LONG Article..this is a small piece. It's worth going to read)

This piece is also by Jan Goodwin and is far more ....detailed and far reaching in the atrocities being described. Whatever the Taliban are and were then, GOOD people is not something they should ever be mistaken for, IMO.

Buried Alive:

I suppose it's a matter of 'To each their own' in wanting to idolize and look up to these people and what they represent in their corner of far out extremism, but lets not miss the target in describing what they DO represent.

I really want to hear how anyone would find this source to be disinfo or an NWO agent or something if someone does find fault with her and her background for credibility. Her name links to her site and who and what she has worked with and been awarded by.

Originally posted by GAOTU789
Historical accuracy isn't that important eh?

The Taliban as an entity weren't in existence in 1985. They came about as an orginazied entity after the Soviets left.

edit on 11-8-2012 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)

Lmfao!Since when has this member EVER used historical accuracy in this crap he calls posts?Historical facts don't mix with his press TV propaganda.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


I've seen this before.
Though I feel "US President meeting with the Afghan Mujahideen" would have been a more accurate title.

Also, its pretty interesting how the mujahideen were once glorified in hollywood movies such as "Rambo 3", "James Bond : The living daylights" and "The Beast of War".

The image of the bearded, turban wearing Afghan holding an AK or an RPG was once a symbol of standing up to the evil communists. Now, the very same image is associated with 'terrorism' and 'the oppression of women'. Interesting how peoples perceptions change with time.

reply to post by mideast


I think you still don't get it, they are called "Taliban", because "Taliban" literally means "Students". That's what it means, students who studied in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

They were called students during the war and after the war. Those schools were created by CIA, and financed by US pawns in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.

For those who don't know, US had an official policy to destabilize any country which was a proxy of USSR, Afghanistan at the time was arguably a proxy of USSR, US created the schools to brainwash children and create chaos and instability.

These students were the ones who began the fight, it wasn't Hekmatyar, or Massood, or other prominent Mujahideen figures.

They came in to the fight later, the students (Taliban) were the first to instigate the destabilization process. Then through propaganda, devout Muslims were mislead to believe that the fight was against aggression, when in reality the fight was world wide, USA VS USSR.

I seem to remember, back in the dim and distant past, another meeting between the Taliban and a soon-to-be president - a certain George W. Bush.

As I remember, the Taliban were invited to the US for talks on the pipelines planned by the UNOCAL consortium, and during the trip they were invited to dine at the residence of the (then) Governor of Texas. Of course, the UNOCAL guys tried stiffing the Taliban on transport tariffs etc so they pulled out (instead offering the project to an Argentinian company), and almost overnight became enemy number 1.... and the rest, as they say, is history!

Also worthy of note of course is that one of UNOCAL's negotiators - their man on the ground, so to speak - was none other than a certain Mr. Karzai. Well who'd have thought he'd get to such an elevated position!

reply to post by Britguy


Hehe ..here is full good article

Bush, Enron, UNOCAL and the Taliban


www.counterpunch.org...

And who are these guys on this picture ?

reply to post by Britguy

I seem to remember, back in the dim and distant past, another meeting between the Taliban and a soon-to-be president - a certain George W. Bush.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit and I don't personally see the problem with that either way. At that time, anyway. That was before they'd made their fate wedded to that of Bin Laden at the final moment. The Taliban were extremist monsters and still are, but they aren't unique and they have plenty of company around the world for that. Business still needs done for nations to function...even theirs while they had control of it. Myanmar (Burma) is another situation in the world right now I'd think of as very similar, even if the underlying reasons are very different.

If people think back, the U.S. and George Bush didn't just snap and go postal in the attack on Afghanistan. The Taliban were given EVERY opportunity to stand separate from Bin Laden and AQ and not go down with them. The world would not have tolerated the U.S. invading them anyway (at least back in the world that existed then) if they had just done one thing.

If they'd handed over Bin Laden to us....or even 3rd party nations for trial as was suggested at the time, they could still be the ruling Government there today. It's hard to say...because they openly told the world they'd beat us and we could never throw them out of power. Ooooops.... Arrogance is strong with them, I feel. Americans aren't alone on that score..

The Taliban was NOT forced to become seen as the same as the terrorists they hosted the training camps for all over their nation. They went out of their way to choose that and Omar himself did everything to make that marriage happen.

Let's just keep things real on the basic facts of what happened.... It's in plenty of places to look up and what's REAL BAD here...it's so recent, a good many of us recall the whole thing from personal memory of watching the reports of events at the time.

"If they'd handed over Bin Laden to us....or even 3rd party nations for trial as was suggested at the time, they could still be the ruling Government there today. It's hard to say...because they openly told the world they'd beat us and we could never throw them out of power. Ooooops.... Arrogance is strong with them, I feel. Americans aren't alone on that score.. "

wrabbit 2000

They may not of even had binladen in astan...imo he was in pstan all the time , if they admitted didnt have him there would be no bartering or need to deal with them so they said they did have him , but didnt..

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The civil war absolutely did spawn the Taliban and initially, the people universally loved it, by reports. Chaos and the law of the warlord and gun with no justice for anyone that wasn't taken by force. That is what the Taliban brought order to, initially anyway. Thats the image that reached the West then and books support it. Books from folks who were there and lived it.

The Taliban are NOT nice people. In fact, I believe they are among the most evil people to have held Government power anywhere in modern times. However, don't take my word on anything for why. There is a very well respected, awarded and established Investigative Reporter and Human Rights Activist who has been in and among it all from way back when people were in Kabul were calling each other Comrade. Jan Goodwin first arrived in Afghanistan in 1984 and reported extensively on Afghanistan through the Occupation and Taliban years.

I put some real effort into finding a voice on this that was as close to acceptable to everyone as can probably ever be had.

As Sohaila, completely covered in the shroud-like burqa veil, was forced to kneel and then flogged, Taliban "cheerleaders" had the stadium ringing with the chants of onlookers. Among those present there were just three women: the young Afghan, and two female relatives who had accompanied her.

I wonder if this is the same Sohalia as in Goodwin's book Caught in the Crossfire. In that book she visited Kabul under Soviet occupation and was toured around the city by a girl named Sohalia.

"One of the benefits of the revolution is equality for women," she explained. "Before, women were exploited. Only a few were working.. Now thousands of our young girls have gone to the Soviet Union and other socialist countries for higher education. They have more opportunities." As Sohalia spoke, the distant but distinct thudding of shells continued. I asked her whether equal rights could be practiced when her country was being accused of violating human rights. "The problems in my country have been exaggerated. It is true we are the victims of an undeclared war by America, and by the counterrevolutionaries who kill our children and destroy our hospitals and schools.But bombing does not take place day and night as you read in your press. this is just foreign propaganda, BBC and Voice of America propaganda."

Caught in the Crossfire p115