Taliban warning to Obama

[alienlovechild 75]

We certainley don't want to offend the Taliban.

heavens no!

Wasn't a problem not too long before 9-11 when we had them over for trade talks.

and supplied them with $$$$$$$$ and weapons..oh wait, they were freedom fighthers then..

HAHA so true.

Um actually, that's wrong. The U.S. (any other countries) supported Afghan rebels in the the anti-Soviet war which ended in 1989.

"Following the removal of the Soviet forces, the U.S. and its allies lost interest in Afghanistan and did little to help rebuild the war-ravaged country or influence events there. The USSR continued to support President Najibullah (former head of the Afghan secret service, KHAD) until 1992 when the new Russian government refused to sell oil products to the Najibullah regime.[53]

Because of the fighting, a number of elites and intellectuals fled to take refuge abroad. This led to a leadership imbalance in Afghanistan. Fighting continued among the victorious Mujahideen factions, which gave rise to a state of warlordism. The most serious fighting during this period occurred in 1994, when over 10,000 people were killed in Kabul alone. It was at this time that the Taliban developed as a politico-religious force, eventually seizing Kabul in 1996 and establishing the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. By the end of 2000 the Taliban had captured 95% of the country."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan

[Ban Hammer 13,356]

oops

[SpiritAlight 1]

One would think that if the BBC could find these guys for interviews then Bush and his Merry Men could certainly find them too.....Perhaps the BBC doesnt keep their heads in their arses

Word!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We certainley don't want to offend the Taliban.

heavens no!

Wasn't a problem not too long before 9-11 when we had them over for trade talks.

and supplied them with $$$$$$$$ and weapons..oh wait, they were freedom fighthers then..

HAHA so true.

Um actually, that's wrong. The U.S. (any other countries) supported Afghan rebels in the the anti-Soviet war which ended in 1989.

"Following the removal of the Soviet forces, the U.S. and its allies lost interest in Afghanistan and did little to help rebuild the war-ravaged country or influence events there. The USSR continued to support President Najibullah (former head of the Afghan secret service, KHAD) until 1992 when the new Russian government refused to sell oil products to the Najibullah regime.[53]

Because of the fighting, a number of elites and intellectuals fled to take refuge abroad. This led to a leadership imbalance in Afghanistan. Fighting continued among the victorious Mujahideen factions, which gave rise to a state of warlordism. The most serious fighting during this period occurred in 1994, when over 10,000 people were killed in Kabul alone. It was at this time that the Taliban developed as a politico-religious force, eventually seizing Kabul in 1996 and establishing the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. By the end of 2000 the Taliban had captured 95% of the country."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan

We helped the Taliban into power through neglect.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

How can y'all have a discussion on the Taliban and not once mention the intelligence agencies in Pakistan that essentially birthed them?

[alienlovechild 75]

We helped the Taliban into power through neglect

At the time nobody figured it would become a training ground for international terrorism and after 7 years of Western intervention I think we can't change a medieval people who only seem to be interested in adopting modern weapons.

How can y'all have a discussion on the Taliban and not once mention the intelligence agencies in Pakistan that essentially birthed them?

True, but most Americans believe everything in the world revolves around U.S. foreign policy as if other countries have no agendas or free will of their own.

Pakistan made that Frankenstein monster and it may lead to Pakistan becoming more like Afghanistan than the other way around.

[almaty 19]

Pakistan made that Frankenstein monster and it may lead to Pakistan becoming more like Afghanistan than the other way around.

excellent point..

[Saddle Bronc 124]

We certainley don't want to offend the Taliban.

heavens no!

Wasn't a problem not too long before 9-11 when we had them over for trade talks.

and supplied them with $$$$$$$$ and weapons..oh wait, they were freedom fighthers then..

HAHA so true.

Um actually, that's wrong. The U.S. (any other countries) supported Afghan rebels in the the anti-Soviet war which ended in 1989.

"Following the removal of the Soviet forces, the U.S. and its allies lost interest in Afghanistan and did little to help rebuild the war-ravaged country or influence events there. The USSR continued to support President Najibullah (former head of the Afghan secret service, KHAD) until 1992 when the new Russian government refused to sell oil products to the Najibullah regime.[53]

Because of the fighting, a number of elites and intellectuals fled to take refuge abroad. This led to a leadership imbalance in Afghanistan. Fighting continued among the victorious Mujahideen factions, which gave rise to a state of warlordism. The most serious fighting during this period occurred in 1994, when over 10,000 people were killed in Kabul alone. It was at this time that the Taliban developed as a politico-religious force, eventually seizing Kabul in 1996 and establishing the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. By the end of 2000 the Taliban had captured 95% of the country."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan

We helped the Taliban into power through neglect.

Somewhat more complex than that.

Because Bill Casey was chummy with Zia's henchman (and co-kleptocrat) Akhtar Rehman, he was blind to where ISI gave the weapons (basically, they supported Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb--who did diddly-squat fighting--and Taliban, whom they were training as "extra unpaid regiments"). Essentially, Zia and Akhtar DIDN't want the Soviets pushed out, as that would shut down their arms-pipeline.

Eventually, Reagan saw that Massoud and Rabbani's Jamiat were the ones actually fighting the Soviets and started helping them (while bypassing Pakistan and ISI)--and it was the Jamiat which drove out the Soviets.

Unfortunately, Jamiat was foolish enough to accept Hezb as a peace-partner and gave PM'ship to Hekmatyar--who then proceeded to wreck Kabul with rockets, and was driven away. Unfortunately, this weakened the Jamiat which fell to the ISI-supported (now headed by Hamid Gul, who probably was the brainstormer of the "extra regiments" logic) Taliban.

Post-9-11 switch by Musharraf--a power-hungry kleptocrat, considered by many Pakistanis as even more corrupt than Zia--basically preponed Taliban's turn on Pakistan (as ISI and Pak Army are largely staffed by Punjabis, and Taliban are almost cent-percent Pashtun--a group most unamenable to overrule by other ethnicitys, this was inevitable).

[HAL 9000 96]

We certainley don't want to offend the Taliban.

heavens no!

Wasn't a problem not too long before 9-11 when we had them over for trade talks.

and supplied them with $$$$ and weapons..oh wait, they were freedom fighthers then..

HAHA so true.

Um actually, that's wrong. The U.S. (any other countries) supported Afghan rebels in the the anti-Soviet war which ended in 1989.

"Following the removal of the Soviet forces, the U.S. and its allies lost interest in Afghanistan and did little to help rebuild the war-ravaged country or influence events there. The USSR continued to support President Najibullah (former head of the Afghan secret service, KHAD) until 1992 when the new Russian government refused to sell oil products to the Najibullah regime.[53]

Because of the fighting, a number of elites and intellectuals fled to take refuge abroad. This led to a leadership imbalance in Afghanistan. Fighting continued among the victorious Mujahideen factions, which gave rise to a state of warlordism. The most serious fighting during this period occurred in 1994, when over 10,000 people were killed in Kabul alone. It was at this time that the Taliban developed as a politico-religious force, eventually seizing Kabul in 1996 and establishing the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. By the end of 2000 the Taliban had captured 95% of the country."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan

Again showing proof you are looking in the wrong places. We are talking about the Taliban government, not the US sponsored rebels that gave rise to the Taliban government.

Which as late as May 2001, received foreign aid from the Bush administration. Don't believe me, ask Cato.

Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters.

[Ban Hammer 13,356]

in other news, what happened? i can now make sense of cherry's posts.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We certainley don't want to offend the Taliban.

heavens no!

Wasn't a problem not too long before 9-11 when we had them over for trade talks.

and supplied them with $$$$$$$$ and weapons..oh wait, they were freedom fighthers then..

HAHA so true.

Um actually, that's wrong. The U.S. (any other countries) supported Afghan rebels in the the anti-Soviet war which ended in 1989.

"Following the removal of the Soviet forces, the U.S. and its allies lost interest in Afghanistan and did little to help rebuild the war-ravaged country or influence events there. The USSR continued to support President Najibullah (former head of the Afghan secret service, KHAD) until 1992 when the new Russian government refused to sell oil products to the Najibullah regime.[53]

Because of the fighting, a number of elites and intellectuals fled to take refuge abroad. This led to a leadership imbalance in Afghanistan. Fighting continued among the victorious Mujahideen factions, which gave rise to a state of warlordism. The most serious fighting during this period occurred in 1994, when over 10,000 people were killed in Kabul alone. It was at this time that the Taliban developed as a politico-religious force, eventually seizing Kabul in 1996 and establishing the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. By the end of 2000 the Taliban had captured 95% of the country."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan

We helped the Taliban into power through neglect.

Somewhat more complex than that.

Because Bill Casey was chummy with Zia's henchman (and co-kleptocrat) Akhtar Rehman, he was blind to where ISI gave the weapons (basically, they supported Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb--who did diddly-squat fighting--and Taliban, whom they were training as "extra unpaid regiments"). Essentially, Zia and Akhtar DIDN't want the Soviets pushed out, as that would shut down their arms-pipeline.

Eventually, Reagan saw that Massoud and Rabbani's Jamiat were the ones actually fighting the Soviets and started helping them (while bypassing Pakistan and ISI)--and it was the Jamiat which drove out the Soviets.

Unfortunately, Jamiat was foolish enough to accept Hezb as a peace-partner and gave PM'ship to Hekmatyar--who then proceeded to wreck Kabul with rockets, and was driven away. Unfortunately, this weakened the Jamiat which fell to the ISI-supported (now headed by Hamid Gul, who probably was the brainstormer of the "extra regiments" logic) Taliban.

Post-9-11 switch by Musharraf--a power-hungry kleptocrat, considered by many Pakistanis as even more corrupt than Zia--basically preponed Taliban's turn on Pakistan (as ISI and Pak Army are largely staffed by Punjabis, and Taliban are almost cent-percent Pashtun--a group most unamenable to overrule by other ethnicitys, this was inevitable).

It usually is.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

...

Which as late as May 2001, received foreign aid from the Bush administration. Don't believe me, ask Cato.

Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters.

Note: Taliban's "ban" on opium cultivation was actually due to their desire to cent-percent control the racket (they had stockpiled opium from earlier years) and maximise profits.

(not sure whether they learned this from Akhtar/Zia combo or devised on own...)

So, it was worse than a stipend for "anti-drug efforts"--actually, that would be like rewarding the Mafia for interfering with the operations of rival crime-syndicates.

[HAL 9000 96]

...

Which as late as May 2001, received foreign aid from the Bush administration. Don't believe me, ask Cato.

Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters.

Note: Taliban's "ban" on opium cultivation was actually due to their desire to cent-percent control the racket (they had stockpiled opium from earlier years) and maximise profits.

(not sure whether they learned this from Akhtar/Zia combo or devised on own...)

So, it was worse than a stipend for "anti-drug efforts"--actually, that would be like rewarding the Mafia for interfering with the operations of rival crime-syndicates.

Call it what it was for or not- the fact of the matter is that the Taliban government of Afghanistan received US Taxpayer money even while we knew Osama bin Laden was hanging out and receiving support from the locals.

[Nagishkaw 510]

...

Which as late as May 2001, received foreign aid from the Bush administration. Don't believe me, ask Cato.

Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters.

Note: Taliban's "ban" on opium cultivation was actually due to their desire to cent-percent control the racket (they had stockpiled opium from earlier years) and maximise profits.

(not sure whether they learned this from Akhtar/Zia combo or devised on own...)

So, it was worse than a stipend for "anti-drug efforts"--actually, that would be like rewarding the Mafia for interfering with the operations of rival crime-syndicates.

Sounds like a good idea.

[almaty 19]

brother sriniv, ftw! the man in the know, about pakistan