Ahmad Shah Masood's Racial Views

[tor_khan]

Would it surprise you if someone mentioned that they did this with Saddam?

Come to think of it, how many instances of US interventionism can you name where the Americans have NOT switched their policies around?

The Americans, lets face it, fought a known proxy war in Afghanistan during the 80s. There was an inwards flow of $$, expertise and arms at that time and the Mujahids had open US moral support.

Do you have any evidence of American support for the Taliban at all?

Categorical and absolute evidence, no. But that is not the point. You said something in reference to why the Americans would turn the gun on the Taliban if they had previously supported them. I simply suggested that given the history, that might even be possible. Saddam is the one we all know about.

The Taliban didn't just appear out of thin air. They were sourced, funded and morally supported by people who chose Afghanistan rather than their own countries to 'try them out'.

Also practically every transaction on this planet is now coloured with American domestic and foreign politics. If the Taliban existed because of Saudi support, remember that the Saudis exist because of US support.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

If America financed or supported Taliban, then why did they have to topple them?

Goat worahippers are delusional.

Political Strategy, you dispose your condom after use.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Do you have any evidence of American support for the Taliban at all?

http://www.rense.com/general14/rise.htm

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Afghanistan's Taliban regime, now bracing for punitive US military strikes, was brought to power with Washington's silent blessing as it dallied in an abortive new "Great Game" in central Asia.

Keen to see Afghanistan under strong central rule to allow a US-led group to build a multi-billion-dollar oil and gas pipeline, Washington urged key allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to back the militia's bid for power in 1996, analysts said.

But it was soon forced to abandon its brief and shadowy flirtation with the Islamic purists, who US officials now say are unfit to rule, as the militia began imposing its brutal version of Islamic law, sparking a violent outcry from US women's groups.

[vinyard80]

Now if the US supported the Taliban, why did they not recognize their government in 96 after taking Kabul before the Bin Laden drama?

Just politics, bro. Right now USA claims that there at war on terror. But who is backing taliban? Whats their ideology? Arabia Saudi and Wahabism. USA knows very well who is behind taliban but they need them. USA needs talibans.

War on terror is a joke. USA hates islamic terrorism but they brought them to power in libia and they wanna do same thing in Syria. Its all a dirty game.




The United States supported the Taliban through its allies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia between 1994 and 1996 because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia and pro-Western.[274] Washington furthermore hoped that the Taliban would support development planned by the U.S.-based oil company Unocal.[275] For example, it made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995, and expelled thousands of girls from schools;[276] the Taliban began killing unarmed civilians, targeting ethnic groups (primarily Hazaras), and restricting the rights of women.[182] In late 1997, American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began to distance the U.S. from the Taliban. The next year, the American-based oil company Unocal withdrew from negotiations on pipeline construction from Central Asia.[277]
One day before the capture of Mazar, bin Laden affiliates bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa, killing 224 and wounding 4,500, mostly Africans. The U.S. responded by launching cruise missiles on suspected terrorist camps in Afghanistan, killing over 20 though failing to kill bin Laden or even many Al-Qaeda. Mullah Omar condemned the missile attack and American President Bill Clinton.[278] Saudi Arabia expelled the Taliban envoy in protest over the refusal to turn over bin Laden, and after Mullah Omar allegedly insulted the Saudi royal family.[279] In mid-October the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to ban commercial aircraft flights to and from Afghanistan, and freeze its bank accounts worldwide.[280]


Rashid 2000, p. 176.
Rashid 2000, pp. 175–8.
Rashid 2000, p. 177.
"US pledges support for Afghan oil pipeline if Taliban makes peace". BBC News. 1997-12-10. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
Reuters, "Taliban blame Clinton scam for attacks", 1998-08-2
Rashid 2000, pp. 138, 231.
Rashid 2000, p. 78.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Categorical and absolute evidence, no.

There is enough evidence to prove aid and support of Saddam by the Americans.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

http://www.rense.com/general14/rise.htm

The Americans never paids Taliban any money nor did they give them any money.

All they wanted is to secure a deal for the building of an oil pipeline through Afghanistan.

For this, they didn't need to give Mullah Omar any money or weapons.

What Vinyard is saying is that the Americans supported the Taliban against Massoud.

On the contrary, the American Steve Coll writes in his book saying that the rational for meeting the Taliban and discussing a deal with them was purely self interest.

If Massoud could create stability and provide the necessary means for the Americans to start investing in the oil pipeline, they would have probably did so.

But since Massoud was very weak, and unable to deliver, Americans decided to try their luck with the Taliban.

As the events unfolded, the Americans realized that the Taliban want a profitable deal and they also provided shelter for the fugitive Saudi Bin Laden.

This lead to increasing distrust and hostility.

These are the facts for which we have evidence from all sides.

The ones suggesting Taliban were sponsored and aided by the Americans have nothing except conspiracy theories.

[DaZahroJaam.]

sheikh shamlawar, are you their accountant??

[abassinafghan]

sheikh shamlawar, are you their accountant??

no he is just a wannabe and selfproclaimed taliban , he want to feel important and knowledgeable , and acts as if he is one .

[DaZahroJaam.]

har sok chi taleb dey, khpal sar d shahadat ta wospari. Zmong sar ta d na bongeegi.

[DSM0305]

I am no fan of Talibans, but what he said is true. People shouldn't involve emotions in factual matters. We shouldn't go around and change historical facts just because we dislike Talibans.

[vinyard80]

The Americans never paids Taliban any money nor did they give them any money.

All they wanted is to secure a deal for the building of an oil pipeline through Afghanistan.

For this, they didn't need to give Mullah Omar any money or weapons.

What Vinyard is saying is that the Americans supported the Taliban against Massoud.

On the contrary, the American Steve Coll writes in his book saying that the rational for meeting the Taliban and discussing a deal with them was purely self interest.

If Massoud could create stability and provide the necessary means for the Americans to start investing in the oil pipeline, they would have probably did so.

But since Massoud was very weak, and unable to deliver, Americans decided to try their luck with the Taliban.

As the events unfolded, the Americans realized that the Taliban want a profitable deal and they also provided shelter for the fugitive Saudi Bin Laden.

This lead to increasing distrust and hostility.

These are the facts for which we have evidence from all sides.

The ones suggesting Taliban were sponsored and aided by the Americans have nothing except conspiracy theories.

How do you know that? LOL

USA killed Massoud.

[vinyard80]

BTW I did not say USA supported talibans against Massoud. I said they supported them against Iranian influence in central asia

[Da Bannu Mazdigar]

har sok chi taleb dey, khpal sar d shahadat ta wospari. Zmong sar ta d na bongeegi.

Na na troray,Sharmawal kho disco taleb de.

He only provides moral support to taliban that too from europe

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

BTW I did not say USA supported talibans against Massoud. I said they supported them against Iranian influence in central asia

How did they support them? Did they give them money, weapons? intelligence gathering equipment, training, logistic support, satalite coordinates of enemy locations?

What kind of support did they give them?

Please provide evidence.

[khushal]

http://www.rense.com/general14/rise.htm

Your source is beyond flawed. There are many regimes that repress womens rights and the US gov protects those regimes with the lives of US soldiers ie Saudi Arabia.
Saying that the US changed its mind because women rights group pressured the US gov is ridiculous.

If the US did support the Taliban directly or indirectly at the beginning, the main reason it changed it's mind was because the Taliban would not compromise on trade agreements like the current regime is today. The US wants obedience when it comes to trade, not human rights.