What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Guns and Afghanistan...what should have been done over the last 20 years.....

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,735
Reaction score
4,719
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
We never funded the Taliban. You should read Charlie Wilson's War. It explains everything. We funded the forces under Shah Mamoud, not the Taliban.

You may be right since I may not know all the details, but I doubt it since the CIA was notorious for funding the more radical fundamentalists for some reason, and certainly there was a time when those who became later known as the Taliban in 1996, were not known by that name yet.
I doubt we funded Ahamad Shah Massoud much because we was Tajik and could never have much of a power sharing role in any Afghan government.
And since he was killed in 2001, he can't play any role after that.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,735
Reaction score
4,719
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
It's not a fuck up. Why didn't trump leave there? Now some ones got the guts to do it, it's suddenly a fuck up.
Fuck off.
How come you are all suddenly swollen with empathy and sadness about people who 12 months ago were your sworn enemy?
You hypocrite.

No Afghani was ever our enemy.
We just totally screwed up and attacked the wrong people.
 

Wild Bill Kelsoe

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
2,374
Reaction score
1,906
Points
1,908
You may be right since I may not know all the details, but I doubt it since the CIA was notorious for funding the more radical fundamentalists for some reason, and certainly there was a time when those who became later known as the Taliban in 1996, were not known by that name yet.
I doubt we funded Ahamad Shah Massoud much because we was Tajik and could never have much of a power sharing role in any Afghan government.
And since he was killed in 2001, he can't play any role after that.
The US funded Massoud's forces exclusively, because he was having the most success against the Soviets. At no time did we directly fund Al Qaeda, or the Taliban. Did the Tals and AQ indirectly benefit? Sure they did. Were we ever allied with the Taliban? No, never. That's one of those Leftists myths you've been told, you accepted it because it fit your narrative and you were too lazy to do your own research and too obedient to ask questions.
 

Wild Bill Kelsoe

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
2,374
Reaction score
1,906
Points
1,908
The Northern Alliance were always more western, being closer to Russia, but were always a small minority.
They are not Pashtun like the Taliban and the majority of Afghans, but Tajik.
So while we may have liked the Northern Alliance more, they were never significant to the Mujahedeen.
Dude, you really are uninformed about the history of the Afghan-Soviet War. Aren't you?
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,735
Reaction score
4,719
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
The US funded Massoud's forces exclusively, because he was having the most success against the Soviets. At no time did we directly fund Al Qaeda, or the Taliban. Did the Tals and AQ indirectly benefit? Sure they did. Were we ever allied with the Taliban? No, never. That's one of those Leftists myths you've been told, you accepted it because it fit your narrative and you were too lazy to do your own research and too obedient to ask questions.

Sorry, I know that is not true.
The CIA MAINLY funded al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda was completely and entirely created only by the CIA.
Bin Laden was still a teenager in 1979 when the CIA created al Qaeda.
Bin Laden did not create al Qaeda at all, and it did not start out anti US.
Al Qaeda translates to "base camp" in Pasto, so that foreign legion volunteers say "al Qaeda" in order to ask directions back to camp, if they got lost.
Al Qaeda was just the foreign legion of the Mujahedeen, and is not just Saudis and other Arabs, but also where US mercenaries were put.
How do I know? Because I know US citizens who did join up, and they were trying to recruit me as well.
I considered it, but the Pashtun really did not like al Qaeda at all, so it seemed like a bad idea.

Massoud may have been the most successful and would have been best to fund, but the Tajiks are insignificant allies, while the Saudi's were the most significant. In fact, likely most of the funding for the Mujahedeen was coming from the Saudis.
So al Qaeda was the number one priority of the Mujahedeen. Actually beating the Soviets was of lesser importance.

It was the CIA who decided to promote religious fundamental extremism.
Why I do not know.
It turned off a lot of people who otherwise wanted to volunteer.
That is partly why the CIA funded the Taliban so heavily (before they were known as Taliban).
But the Taliban also were the least corrupt, most honest, and most popular.
Massoud was never accepted by most Pashtun and could never have had the popularity of the Taliban.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,735
Reaction score
4,719
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Dude, you really are uninformed about the history of the Afghan-Soviet War. Aren't you?

Sorry, but the CIA did not even have much direct contact with the Mujahedeen except through al Qaeda.
The Pashtun and Tajiks were not our allies, so the CIA did not trust them.
The Saudis, like bin Laden, were our allies, so we not only trusted them, but funneled our money and weapons through them.

Read who was giving weapons to the Mujahedeen.
{...
Military aid
Weapons supplies were made available through numerous countries. The United States purchased all of Israel's captured Soviet weapons clandestinely, and then funnelled the weapons to the Mujahideen, while Egypt upgraded its army's weapons and sent the older weapons to the militants. Turkey sold their World War II stockpiles to the warlords, and the British and Swiss provided Blowpipe missiles and Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns respectively, after they were found to be poor models for their own forces.[164] China provided the most relevant weapons, likely due to their own experience with guerrilla warfare, and kept meticulous record of all the shipments.[164]
...}
Would China be giving SAMs to Pashtun and Tajiks who have Uyghur ties, or to Saudis like al Qaeda?

So could I be wrong?
Sure, I have 2nd hand sources only.
But al Qaeda was there from the beginning.
I am not wrong in remembering how highly the US promoted al Qaeda.
That is pure memory, so is not wrong.
 

Wild Bill Kelsoe

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
2,374
Reaction score
1,906
Points
1,908
Sorry, I know that is not true.
The CIA MAINLY funded al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda was completely and entirely created only by the CIA.
Bin Laden was still a teenager in 1979 when the CIA created al Qaeda.
Bin Laden did not create al Qaeda at all, and it did not start out anti US.
Al Qaeda translates to "base camp" in Pasto, so that foreign legion volunteers say "al Qaeda" in order to ask directions back to camp, if they got lost.
Al Qaeda was just the foreign legion of the Mujahedeen, and is not just Saudis and other Arabs, but also where US mercenaries were put.
How do I know? Because I know US citizens who did join up, and they were trying to recruit me as well.
I considered it, but the Pashtun really did not like al Qaeda at all, so it seemed like a bad idea.

Massoud may have been the most successful and would have been best to fund, but the Tajiks are insignificant allies, while the Saudi's were the most significant. In fact, likely most of the funding for the Mujahedeen was coming from the Saudis.
So al Qaeda was the number one priority of the Mujahedeen. Actually beating the Soviets was of lesser importance.

It was the CIA who decided to promote religious fundamental extremism.
Why I do not know.
It turned off a lot of people who otherwise wanted to volunteer.
That is partly why the CIA funded the Taliban so heavily (before they were known as Taliban).
But the Taliban also were the least corrupt, most honest, and most popular.
Massoud was never accepted by most Pashtun and could never have had the popularity of the Taliban.
And you couldn't be more wrong...lol. That lie is decades old. You should educate yourself and stop going just on what you've been told.
 

Wild Bill Kelsoe

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
2,374
Reaction score
1,906
Points
1,908
Sorry, but the CIA did not even have much direct contact with the Mujahedeen except through al Qaeda.
The Pashtun and Tajiks were not our allies, so the CIA did not trust them.
The Saudis, like bin Laden, were our allies, so we not only trusted them, but funneled our money and weapons through them.

Read who was giving weapons to the Mujahedeen.
{...
Military aid
Weapons supplies were made available through numerous countries. The United States purchased all of Israel's captured Soviet weapons clandestinely, and then funnelled the weapons to the Mujahideen, while Egypt upgraded its army's weapons and sent the older weapons to the militants. Turkey sold their World War II stockpiles to the warlords, and the British and Swiss provided Blowpipe missiles and Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns respectively, after they were found to be poor models for their own forces.[164] China provided the most relevant weapons, likely due to their own experience with guerrilla warfare, and kept meticulous record of all the shipments.[164]
...}
Would China be giving SAMs to Pashtun and Tajiks who have Uyghur ties, or to Saudis like al Qaeda?

So could I be wrong?
Sure, I have 2nd hand sources only.
But al Qaeda was there from the beginning.
I am not wrong in remembering how highly the US promoted al Qaeda.
That is pure memory, so is not wrong.
You drank the whole glass of kool-aid. Didn't you?...lol
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,735
Reaction score
4,719
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
You drank the whole glass of kool-aid. Didn't you?...lol


Oh come on, after the US lied about everything, like WMD in Iraq, odds are whatever the government says, the opposite is more likely to be true.
The Taliban are not making money off this.
They were dedicated to struggle and poverty for decades because of us.
There is no basis for anyone suggesting they are corrupt instead of us.
 

Wild Bill Kelsoe

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
2,374
Reaction score
1,906
Points
1,908
Oh come on, after the US lied about everything, like WMD in Iraq, odds are whatever the government says, the opposite is more likely to be true.
The Taliban are not making money off this.
They were dedicated to struggle and poverty for decades because of us.
There is no basis for anyone suggesting they are corrupt instead of us.
That's your argument?...lol
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,735
Reaction score
4,719
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
That's your argument?...lol

And what is wrong with that argument?
They Taliban were struggling hard for their country, and were popular.
The US was known to be lying and invading over oil and profits.
We had our chance to "nation build" after the Soviets left.
We declined.
So it is pretty clear the war was deliberately for companies wanting profits from weapons/munitions sales.
The Taliban could not have been any part of our motivation.
If we cared about Afghanistan, we would have done something in 1989.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
91,577
Reaction score
30,985
Points
2,250
The resistance in Afghanistan.....

While Americans flew out, the resistance movement dug in.

Afghans with knowledge of the resistance described for Just the News one remote training camp amid the mountains and waters of Panjshir. There, fighters work to perfect their military skills and physical training. The camp sends its recruits on American military-style marches, carrying heavy wooden logs across rivers and along roads.

According to photographs from on scene, the fighters' weapons both old and new include shoulder-launched rockets; Western and Russian-style rifles; machine guns; an American Humvee; and a Soviet-era tank.

Fighters arrive at the camp on foot, atop motorcycles, or packed inside pickup trucks, sources said. Their uniforms span a range of camouflage from various nations, along with traditional Afghan clothing, cargo pants, and tee shirts.


Amid the mix of equipment and clothing styles, the purpose is constant: to hold Panjshir.

Sources inside Afghanistan told Just the News that on Monday fighting flared on the outskirts of Panjshir, as resistance forces battled the Taliban. One unconfirmed dispatch from inside the country said that clashes took place in Gulbahar District and Jabul Seraj, north of Kabul.


You need guns to resist.......
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
137,461
Reaction score
17,305
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
If we wanted to help these people, we should have trained citizen militias, armed them with rifles and pistols....for the eventual day when we left and the Afghan military collapsed.

We did that, Dick Tiny. They all joined the Taliban.

I'm not even sure why you guys are upset about the Taliban... they are living the Right Wing Dream. Lots of religious nuts with guns imposing the will of their Imaginary Sky Friend on everyone else.

 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,735
Reaction score
4,719
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
We did that, Dick Tiny. They all joined the Taliban.

I'm not even sure why you guys are upset about the Taliban... they are living the Right Wing Dream. Lots of religious nuts with guns imposing the will of their Imaginary Sky Friend on everyone else.


So what do you have against the Taliban?
They are the only honest people in Afghanistan, who are not just out for heroin profits, kidnapping, raping, etc.
We lied about them, and they never were involved in any terrorism.
I would not want to live there, but clearly the Taliban are the most popular choice.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
137,461
Reaction score
17,305
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
So what do you have against the Taliban?
They are the only honest people in Afghanistan, who are not just out for heroin profits, kidnapping, raping, etc.
We lied about them, and they never were involved in any terrorism.
I would not want to live there, but clearly the Taliban are the most popular choice.

I see your reading comprehension is as poor as ever.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$142.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top