Reagan and His Meeting With The Taliban and Mujahideen

[CrusaderFrank]

Anyway, I thought it was Charlie Wilson War? What the fucking fuck?

 

[Kalam]

The Taliban began as a student's movement under Mullah Omar in 1994, not during Reagan's presidency. Two girls had been captured and rape by a local warlord, so Omar and his students hung him and freed the girls. They continued fighting corruption in this manner until the movement gained momentum and they began taking over the country.

That being said, it's inaccurate to claim that the support of the US during the Soviet occupation did not directly benefit what would later become elements of the Taliban and Hizb-i-Islami.

 

[Si modo]

The Taliban began as a student's movement under Mullah Omar in 1994, not during Reagan's presidency. Two girls had been captured and rape by a local warlord, so Omar and his students hung him and freed the girls. They continued fighting corruption in this manner until the movement gained momentum and they began taking over the country.

That being said, it's inaccurate to claim that the support of the US during the Soviet occupation did not directly benefit what would later become elements of the Taliban and Hizb-i-Islami.

Then, give support for how exactly it DID benefit the taliban. Your typed words don't cut it.

 

[Kalam]

The Taliban began as a student's movement under Mullah Omar in 1994, not during Reagan's presidency. Two girls had been captured and rape by a local warlord, so Omar and his students hung him and freed the girls. They continued fighting corruption in this manner until the movement gained momentum and they began taking over the country.

That being said, it's inaccurate to claim that the support of the US during the Soviet occupation did not directly benefit what would later become elements of the Taliban and Hizb-i-Islami.

Then, give support for how exactly it DID benefit the taliban. Your typed words don't cut it.

Hello, Si Modo. It's nice to see you posting again.

U.S. Defense Secretary: Taliban don't have stinger missiles

I'm referring to America's material support of the anti-Soviet mujahideen. Unless you're going to claim that all of those mujahideen sided with the Northern Alliance, we must logically conclude that many of the weapons furnished by the United States (Stinger missile systems, etc.) ended up in the hands of the Taliban. Dr. Gates, of course, denies that the Taliban have access to Stinger missiles. Perhaps he didn't see the photo above.

There's also Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose story is another issue entirely.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama happy to met KKK Grand Kleagle and show him how he knows his place

 

[Si modo]

The Taliban began as a student's movement under Mullah Omar in 1994, not during Reagan's presidency. Two girls had been captured and rape by a local warlord, so Omar and his students hung him and freed the girls. They continued fighting corruption in this manner until the movement gained momentum and they began taking over the country.

That being said, it's inaccurate to claim that the support of the US during the Soviet occupation did not directly benefit what would later become elements of the Taliban and Hizb-i-Islami.

Then, give support for how exactly it DID benefit the taliban. Your typed words don't cut it.

Hello, Si Modo. It's nice to see you posting again.

Nice to see you again, too.

U.S. Defense Secretary: Taliban don't have stinger missiles

I'm referring to America's material support of the anti-Soviet mujahideen.

Yes, that's obvious and a given.

Unless you're going to claim that all of those mujahideen sided with the Northern Alliance, ...

Nope, but the logical relevance of whether I do that or not to my statement that the mujahadeen and the taliban are not the same thing is unclear. Furthermore, its relevance to any claim that the US under the Reagan administration met with the taliban (the topic of this whacked thread) is also unclear.

 

[lizzie]

Even the Ronnie god praised Taliban.

Ronald Reagan meeting with Taliban\al-Qaeda\Mujahideen The Political Inquirer.

The Great ronnie god praised the taliban and al-qaeda.

It's just an example of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" reality in the geopolitical world. What was not thought out well was that getting the Russians out of Afghanistan would leave a huge vacuum for the Taliban to fill.

 

[Kalam]

Then, give support for how exactly it DID benefit the taliban. Your typed words don't cut it.

Hello, Si Modo. It's nice to see you posting again.

Nice to see you again, too.

U.S. Defense Secretary: Taliban don't have stinger missiles

I'm referring to America's material support of the anti-Soviet mujahideen.

Yes, that's obvious and a given.

Unless you're going to claim that all of those mujahideen sided with the Northern Alliance, ...

Nope, but the logical relevance of whether I do that or not to my statement that the mujahadeen and the taliban are not the same thing is unclear. Furthermore, its relevance to any claim that the US under the Reagan administration met with the taliban (the topic of this whacked thread) is also unclear.

My only claim was that the US provided support for certain groups of people that would later become Taliban. If you don't take exception to this, then we have no disagreement.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[edthecynic]

Even the Ronnie god praised Taliban.

Ronald Reagan meeting with Taliban\al-Qaeda\Mujahideen The Political Inquirer.

The Great ronnie god praised the taliban and al-qaeda.

It's just an example of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" reality in the geopolitical world. What was not thought out well was that getting the Russians out of Afghanistan would leave a huge vacuum for the Taliban to fill.

Except St Ronnie's GOP point man for stingers was still defending the Taliban in 1996 and negotiating with them in 2001.

Rogue Statesman
September 6 - 12, 2002
Rogue Statesman
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher’s absolutely crazy, quite possibly illegal back-channel chats with the villains of Sept. 11

by R. Scott Moxley

"[Rohrabacher] says the Taliban are devout traditionalists—not terrorists or revolutionaries. He believes a Taliban takeover [of Afghanistan] would be a positive development."

... "Listen! Hold on!" said Rohrabacher. "I am a bigger expert on Afghanistan than any member of Congress." ...

A November/December 1996 article in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs reported, "The potential rise of power of the Taliban does not alarm Rohrabacher" because the congressman believes the "Taliban could provide stability in an area where chaos was creating a real threat to the U.S." Later in the article, Rohrabacher claimed that:

Taliban leaders are "not terrorists or revolutionaries."

Media reports documenting the Taliban’s harsh, radical beliefs were "nonsense."

The Taliban would develop a "disciplined, moral society" that did not harbor terrorists.

The Taliban posed no threat to the U.S.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I thought it was Charlie Wilson's War?

 

[lizzie]

by R. Scott Moxley

"[Rohrabacher] says the Taliban are devout traditionalists—not terrorists or revolutionaries. He believes a Taliban takeover [of Afghanistan] would be a positive development."

And at the time, I would say that he believed this. Frankly, the Taliban does have a moral code, it's just much more severe than ours, and seems barbaric to the western mind. Morality is relative depending on one's culture and time.

by R. Scott Moxley


A November/December 1996 article in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs reported, "The potential rise of power of the Taliban does not alarm Rohrabacher" because the congressman believes the "Taliban could provide stability in an area where chaos was creating a real threat to the U.S." Later in the article, Rohrabacher claimed that:

Taliban leaders are "not terrorists or revolutionaries."

Media reports documenting the Taliban’s harsh, radical beliefs were "nonsense."

The Taliban would develop a "disciplined, moral society" that did not harbor terrorists.

The Taliban posed no threat to the U.S.

Again, in the context of his observation, this was true. The only reason we see them as so now, is because we have become so involved politically in the region (which is in reality none of our business), and this has led to hatred of them for us. It's really not surprising.

 

[Political Junky]

Even the Ronnie god praised Taliban.

Ronald Reagan meeting with Taliban\al-Qaeda\Mujahideen The Political Inquirer.

The Great ronnie god praised the taliban and al-qaeda.

It's just an example of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" reality in the geopolitical world. What was not thought out well was that getting the Russians out of Afghanistan would leave a huge vacuum for the Taliban to fill.

Except St Ronnie's GOP point man for stingers was still defending the Taliban in 1996 and negotiating with them in 2001.

Rogue Statesman
September 6 - 12, 2002
Rogue Statesman
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher’s absolutely crazy, quite possibly illegal back-channel chats with the villains of Sept. 11

by R. Scott Moxley

"[Rohrabacher] says the Taliban are devout traditionalists—not terrorists or revolutionaries. He believes a Taliban takeover [of Afghanistan] would be a positive development."

... "Listen! Hold on!" said Rohrabacher. "I am a bigger expert on Afghanistan than any member of Congress." ...

A November/December 1996 article in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs reported, "The potential rise of power of the Taliban does not alarm Rohrabacher" because the congressman believes the "Taliban could provide stability in an area where chaos was creating a real threat to the U.S." Later in the article, Rohrabacher claimed that:

Taliban leaders are "not terrorists or revolutionaries."

Media reports documenting the Taliban’s harsh, radical beliefs were "nonsense."

The Taliban would develop a "disciplined, moral society" that did not harbor terrorists.

The Taliban posed no threat to the U.S.

Rohrabacher is still batshit crazy.

 

[edthecynic]

by R. Scott Moxley

"[Rohrabacher] says the Taliban are devout traditionalists—not terrorists or revolutionaries. He believes a Taliban takeover [of Afghanistan] would be a positive development."

And at the time, I would say that he believed this. Frankly, the Taliban does have a moral code, it's just much more severe than ours, and seems barbaric to the western mind. Morality is relative depending on one's culture and time.

by R. Scott Moxley


A November/December 1996 article in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs reported, "The potential rise of power of the Taliban does not alarm Rohrabacher" because the congressman believes the "Taliban could provide stability in an area where chaos was creating a real threat to the U.S." Later in the article, Rohrabacher claimed that:

Taliban leaders are "not terrorists or revolutionaries."

Media reports documenting the Taliban’s harsh, radical beliefs were "nonsense."

The Taliban would develop a "disciplined, moral society" that did not harbor terrorists.

The Taliban posed no threat to the U.S.

Again, in the context of his observation, this was true. The only reason we see them as so now, is because we have become so involved politically in the region (which is in reality none of our business), and this has led to hatred of them for us. It's really not surprising.

You should have read the link before you made excuses for a fellow CON$ervative, you might have seen some nuggets like this one:

Rohrabacher claimed that the Clinton administration—out of office for eight months when the attacks occurred—had ignored his pleas not to negotiate with the Taliban, a fundamentalist Islamic party controlling most of Afghanistan since 1996. (A hardcore partisan Republican, Rohrabacher remained silent about numerous meetings between George W. Bush’s advisors and the Taliban throughout 2001.) On Sept. 17, 2001, the congressman declared, "There is rage in my soul."

Right-wing organizations across the nation immediately picked up on Rohrabacher’s anti-Taliban, anti-Clinton statements and hailed him a "hero."

In fact, Rohrabacher’s post-Sept. 11 finger-pointing was a fraud designed to distract attention from his own ongoing meddling in the foreign-policy nightmare. Federal documents reviewed by the Weekly show that Rohrabacher maintained a cordial, behind-the-scenes relationship with Osama bin Laden’s associates in the Middle East—even while he mouthed his most severe anti-Taliban comments at public forums across the U.S. There’s worse: despite the federal Logan Act ban on unauthorized individual attempts to conduct American foreign policy, the congressman dangerously acted as a self-appointed secretary of state, constructing what foreign-affairs experts call a "dual tract" policy with the Taliban.

A veteran U.S. foreign-policy expert told the Weekly, "If Dana’s right-wing fans knew the truth about his actual, working relationship with the Taliban and its representatives in the Middle East and in the United States, they wouldn’t be so happy."

Nowadays, Rohrabacher and his numerous aides are quick to provide copies of the congressman’s pre-Sept. 11 rants against the Taliban. They will tell you that he labeled them "a pack of dogs killing anyone" and "the most anti-Western, anti-female, anti-human rights regime in the world." They will also show you records of the congressman berating Clinton administration foreign-policy advisors for misreading Taliban intentions and for trying to negotiate peace in Afghanistan with the militant Islamic group’s Mullah Mohammed Omar, a bin Laden associate.