US Marines urinate on dead Taliban

On 9/11
15 of the Hijackers were Saudis.
1 was Egyptian.
2 were UAE
1 was Lebanese

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2002/DCI_18_June_testimony_new.pdf

Where were the Iraqis?
Too busy training?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Secular? Pro-western? Is that a joke? Saddam supported Islamic extremists and built mosques all over the place. He attacked our allies and committed genocide. He was the one responsible for the climate of sectarian hatred that became evident later! It's not like Iraq was a stable, peaceful place with him in charge, it was a state ruled by terror and indiscriminate killing, mass graves and public torture! Saddam was responsible for all of it, including our invasion.

He may not have been responsible for some incidents of bombing the wrong thing or soldiers going out of control, but those were relatively minor.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I seem to recall the suggestion that Saddam would develop nuclear weapons, and then provide these to terrorists to strike the USA, being fairly central to the whole "preventative war" premise. "The smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud," etc.

That's silly. The fact that Saddam was happy to take money and weapons from the West back in the 1980's doesn't mean he was ever "pro-Western," and in any case he certainly was nothing of the sort by 2003. Or even, 1993.

Likewise, the fact that Iraq wasn't a clerical regime like Iran or a church-approved monarchy like Saudi Arabia doesn't imply that it was "secular." Saddam's regime was openly, violently sectarian, representing Sunni Arab ascendency over the Shia and Kurds, backed by a willingness to employ genocidal repression to keep it that way.

As for secular, pro-Western countries in the region, you seem to be strangely discounting Egypt and Turkey.

True enough, I suppose... but is that really a criticism? Would the alternative - indefinite repression of the Shia and Kurds - really have been preferable?

And let's note that Saddam did as much to stoke the underlying rivalries as he did to repress their expressions.

"Legitimate" in what sense?

Certainly not in the sense that any other governments to speak of recognized them as such and treated them accordingly. Nor in the sense that they could point to any particular mandate for their rule.

Recent actions in Libya might clarify the difference.

It's only when a government has the support and approval of the corresponding nation that the distinction breaks down. In situations where the relationship between the two is more fraught, it's a different story.

Incurring more military casualties than civilian casualties is typically how you want wars to proceed. If you're losing more civilians than troops, something is going very badly.

But not less loss of American civilian life, nor American infrastructure. And given that 9/11 led to a surge of pro-American sentiment, preventing such would seem to entail accepting increased anti-American sentiment. And I think that much of the political "stability" under the status quo was illusory, as illustrated by the Arab Spring.

But they have provided none of the myriad benefits to America (and humanity generally) that peanut production, distribution and consumption does. There's no offsetting benefit to justify the terrorist damage, so the comparison is silly.

I wouldn't say that. It's just that we were even more displeased with his enemies at the time. I don't recall anyone lauding Saddam as a "buddy." He was always portrayed as the lesser of two evils.

That's ridiculous. The Taliban didn't come into existence until more than a decade after Carter was out of office. The Taliban was created by the ISI after the Russian withdrawl, to reduce Afghanistan into a satelite state.

That is just flat-out wrong. I've corrected you on this screwy narrative before. Once Wikipedia is available again, I suggest you do some reading.

The Russians took over the government of Afghanistan, and then sent in their own troops to back them up. In response, a collection of militias known as the Mujehadin formed the resistance, and were backed by the USA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. After they managed to compel a Russian withdrawl, the Russian-backed state collapsed a few years later and civil war broke out. The Mujehadin fractured into competing groups, largely along ethnic lines. One of these was the Taliban (the Pashtun group, sponsored by Pakistan). Another major one was the Northern Alliance, which was a coalition of Tajik and Uzbek groups opposed to the Pashtun Taliban. The Taliban, owing to extensive support from Pakistani intelligence and military, eventually managed to take over most of the country until 2001, when the US allied with the Northern Alliance and assisted them in rolling back the Taliban.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, its you who is wrong.

From the horses mouth:

 

What's the difference?

 

You haven't disagreed with much that I've said, there. Just the exact timing of when US support commenced relative to the arrival of Soviet troops. You have not, notice, endorsed any of the mistakes Fraggle posted which I was addressing.

 

The CIA (via Carter) were fundamental in creating the Taliban. Brzezinski confirms it.

 

Your Brzezinksi quote doesn't mention the Taliban at all. It discusses the Mujahedin. The Taliban did not arise until many years later, when the Mujahedin movement splintered after the Soviet withdrawl.

Your quote also does not say anything about anyone "creating" anything. It discusses the provision of funding to groups that already existed.

 

Certainly! Shower unto others as thou wouldst have them shower unto thou.

 

The existing groups thus divided and the Taliban was seeded.

What is your view OT?

 

Many years later, long after Carter (and Reagan) were out of office, the Soviets had departed, and the USA had ceased funding the anti-Soviet resistance, the former Mujehadin forces splintered along ethnic lines, picked up various foreign patrons (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran) and engaged in a civil war for control of Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the Taliban grew out of Afghan refugees in religious schools in Pakistan, with the support and funding of the Pakistani intelligence and military services.

Just as I described in the post that you objected to in the first place. What, exactly, is your contention here?

What does "seeded" mean?

The Taliban got their financing, recruits and political support from Pakistan. The relationship with the USA is removed and tangential - some of the Taliban leadership were formerly in groups that had received US (and Saudi and Pakistani) sponsorship during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

What is "OT?" Overtime? Old Testament?

 

And the Taliban actually had to fight mujahideen in order to gain power.

 

Origin.

In the 70`s Pakistan received huge amounts of military aid - third behind Israel and Egypt. Where do you think the bulk of this ended up? The CIA backed the grotesque but powerfull Hekmatyar and his Hezbi-i Isbmi and armed him via Pakistan. After the US let him down, he turned and backed the Taliban which then gained power.

Thus the rise and subsequent influence of the Taliban can be traced right back to Carter.

On Topic.

 

Well that doesn't help - "seeded" is a past participle, and origin is a noun. What are you asserting, exactly?

We've already amply discussed American aid to the anti-Soviet resistance, and how this was coordinated wtih Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. None of that is in dispute. What, exactly, is your point?

No he didn't. That guy was an enemy of the Taliban, and fled to Iran when they gained power. He didn't show up again until the Taliban had been removed from power.

Even if your narrative about Hekmatyar's relationship with the Taliban were correct - and it is exactly backwards - that wouldn't follow. The fact that the CIA at one pointed funded some guys who, years later, went on to form some other groups, doesn't add up to the CIA "creating" the latter groups.

This all looks an awful lot like the craven America-obsessed worldview, which insist that America is directly responsible for everything that happens everywhere in the world. That you'd hold up some (incorrect) tangential relationship between a couple of loosely-related groups as clear proof of direct American responsibility - while totally eliding the direct, overt role played by Pakistan - makes such a conclusion difficult to resist (even ignoring your extensive post history on the topic).

Asked and answered.

Why are you being so obtusely argumentative? You don't even seem to have a real point to make - just looking for a fight?

 

um yeah iraq was secular people sorta of like lebanon is. I think you don't have any idea what secular was. its wasn't a religion dominated state. was it functional no but secular yes it was.

but than facts have never been your strong suit when it comes to having a chance to bash islam. maybe we should all lie about your faith the way you lie about islam.

 

money and training just don't go poof. their are tangible long term benefits.

 

The money largely does, actually. It wasn't being invested in productive enterprizes, but spent on weapons, food, etc.

Sure, and if the assertion in question was that "American intervention in favor of the anti-Soviet resistence contributed to the long-term militarization and instability of Afghanistan" you'd hear no complaints from me. But "tangible long term benefits" is not "created the Taliban." The latter implies a much more specific, direct role than anything actually visible in the facts (or even, anything materially alleged by those making the claim). It's pretty clear that the proponents of this claim did not come to it via the facts, but rather through an urge to, on the one hand, blame everything on the USA and, on the other, cast the USA as a bungling nincompoop. You can see this pretty clearly in what you get when you interrogate such a claimant - immediate retreat into minor irrelevancies, mangling of the relevant history, vague hand-waving, etc. Or, note that we never see the parallel claims made - that the USA created the Northern Alliance, despite all of the claims made linking the USA to the Taliban holding true of the Northern Alliance as well.

Which whole ideation - USA as supremely powerful, controlling everything that happens all over the world, but also so stupid that cranks who can't even keep their basic facts straight know better - is pretty ridiculous when you stop to think about it.

 

Obviously, the inherent instability of Afghanistan is a British/Russian colonial legacy. It is beyond dispute that the Russians created a ripe environment for the Mujahideen. Its also beyond dispute that the Mujahideen, the Taliban and al Qa`ida owe their existence to Western (US) support in the form of material, military and economic backing, often via proxies. Without this support it is doubtful that the Taliban, which was made up of Mujahideen would have risen - thus using the term "created" is totally reasonable.

These are the facts.

If the glove fits...

?

 

That is not obvious in the least. Afghanistan was pretty well stable from the 1930s up until the Marxist revolution in the 1970's. It was the 1979 Soviet invasion in favor of the PDPA that really threw the country into turmoil.

That would be the Soviets, and let's note that the Mujahideen were there before the Soviets showed up.

No, it is not. Again, the Mujahideen existed well before any Western support commenced.

Nor is it at all clear that the arisal of some splinter groups years later, long after the Western support had stopped and without any interactions with Western intelligence, wouldn't have happened anyway.

It is clear that the Taliban would never have gotten off of the ground without the explicit, generous support of Pakistan, though.

Most of the Taliban were Afghan refugees in Pakistan, who were recruited out of Pakistani-run religious schools.

But even if we take your assertion at face value - that the Mujahideen experience in the 1980's was crucial to the later formation of the Taliban - that is still far short of "created by the USA." That only rises to the level of "unintended side-effect," not "creation." No American funds were provided to the Taliban, nor did any Western agents assist them with organization or recruiting or anything else.

If the definition of "created" is "did something in a previous era without which it is doubtful that some other thing would have happened," then you could as well argue that the Taliban was "created" by the USSR, or by the Afghan Marxist movement, or by Saudi Arabia, or by Great Britain, or by India, or by Iran. That fact that you do not - and that you pointedly skip over any examination of the direct, major role that Pakistani intelligence services played in founding and organizing the Taliban and putting them in charge of Afghanistan - calls your credibility as an interpretter of the facts in question into extreme doubt.

Your post did not contain a single fact. It was entirely composed of your own interpretations and opinions. Which raises the question of whether you can even reliably distinguish between the two.