5 ms·

The US tends to play word games to where they never armed the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the 1970s and 1980s. In the same manner its easy to play

The US tends to play word games to where they never armed the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the 1970s and 1980s. In the same manner its easy to play word games to where after years of screaming headlines about genocide (which I guess does not include the US carpet bombing of Cambodia), as soon as the Khmer Rouge, whatever that is supposed to be, gets pushed out of power in 1979, the US begins aiding the KR in a myriad of ways, including in 1985 when it began somewhat openly, somewhat clandestinely, arming the Khmer Rouge. ( This marks the start of the heavy armament https://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/10/world/u-s-may-help-2-rebel-groups-of-cambodians.html https://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/10/world/u-s-may-help-2-rebe... - note all the denials that any of the arms are going to the KR - later reports showed they indeed were). It's kind of amusing to watch Americans in hysterics claiming a group is committing genocide, then arming that group for victory in their civil war, then going back to tearing their shirts about this genocide they claim happened. If it happened, then the good old USA armed the KR after all the period it supposedly happened.

dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN further into political, ideological, and nationalistic flamewar. It's tedious and evokes worse from others. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
drocer88 6y ago
Do you have any evidence that the U.S. directly supported the Taliban or al-Qaeda?
- walrus01 6y ago
  They didn't, he's oversimplifying it greatly. The US armed the Mujahadeen throughout the 1980s (through the Pakistani ISI and Pakistani state), leaving behind a vast amount of unused weaponry in Afghanistan. This was during the period prior to the soviet ground forces' withdrawal from Afghanistan and prior to the ending of the Najibullah government, and the killing of Najibullah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Najibullah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Najibullah It definitely is a fact that during the 1980s the US pursued a policy of "the enemy of my enemy...", in which the hardcore fundamentalist/sharia law politics and religious ideology of some of the mujahadeen they supported (Bin Laden included), were seen as secondary or tertiary to the primary mission of killing soviet soldiers, and bringing about the end of the soviet-backed government. Some of the former Muj, predominantly the very fundamentalist Pashtun factions, later became the Taliban which seized Kandahar in 1994, and then Kabul in 1996. At that point the US had not been supporting them for at least 4 years. After the Taliban became an actual "thing" the US shifted its support to the northern alliance/northern warlords such as Dostum and Massoud.
- banads 6y ago
  There is lots of evidence of the US supporting gangsters throughout the middle east and then later going to war against them. So much so, that the intelligence agencies responsible invented a word for it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)
  - dang 6y ago
    Please stop using HN for political and ideological battle. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - banads 6y ago
      Please elaborate on how this comment is a political or ideological battle? A person asked a specific question about US history, and I replied with relevant historical documentation. How could I have answered their question in a way that does not destroy HN?
      - dang 6y ago
        First, just to clarify: if I say "Please stop using HN for X" it means that there's a pattern rather than just an isolated comment, and the request is to stop the pattern. If it were a one-time violation I'd say "Please don't". With this particular comment: it's taking the thread into a generic ideological tangent, away from the topic, on a classic flamewar theme. Also, "the US supporting gangsters" is flamebait. Please avoid denunciatory rhetoric on HN generally. It kills curious conversation, which is the purpose of this site. And it usually triggers people on the other side of the issue into doing worse. Also, although you used the words "lots of evidence", the comment is shallow and uninformative. Also, the link you linked to doesn't support what you said, so calling it "relevant historical documentation" is misleading.
refurb 6y ago
You’re playing word games too. The US never armed the Taliban. Yes, the US armed anti-Soviet fighters in the 80’s and many of those fighter ended up joining the Taliban years later, but to say “the US armed the Taliban” is being dishonest.

dang 6y ago

Please don't take HN further into political, ideological, and nationalistic flamewar. It's tedious and evokes worse from others. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

drocer88 6y ago

Do you have any evidence that the U.S. directly supported the Taliban or al-Qaeda?

walrus01 6y ago
They didn't, he's oversimplifying it greatly. The US armed the Mujahadeen throughout the 1980s (through the Pakistani ISI and Pakistani state), leaving behind a vast amount of unused weaponry in Afghanistan. This was during the period prior to the soviet ground forces' withdrawal from Afghanistan and prior to the ending of the Najibullah government, and the killing of Najibullah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Najibullah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Najibullah It definitely is a fact that during the 1980s the US pursued a policy of "the enemy of my enemy...", in which the hardcore fundamentalist/sharia law politics and religious ideology of some of the mujahadeen they supported (Bin Laden included), were seen as secondary or tertiary to the primary mission of killing soviet soldiers, and bringing about the end of the soviet-backed government. Some of the former Muj, predominantly the very fundamentalist Pashtun factions, later became the Taliban which seized Kandahar in 1994, and then Kabul in 1996. At that point the US had not been supporting them for at least 4 years. After the Taliban became an actual "thing" the US shifted its support to the northern alliance/northern warlords such as Dostum and Massoud.
banads 6y ago
There is lots of evidence of the US supporting gangsters throughout the middle east and then later going to war against them. So much so, that the intelligence agencies responsible invented a word for it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)
- dang 6y ago
  Please stop using HN for political and ideological battle. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - banads 6y ago
    Please elaborate on how this comment is a political or ideological battle? A person asked a specific question about US history, and I replied with relevant historical documentation. How could I have answered their question in a way that does not destroy HN?
    - dang 6y ago
      First, just to clarify: if I say "Please stop using HN for X" it means that there's a pattern rather than just an isolated comment, and the request is to stop the pattern. If it were a one-time violation I'd say "Please don't". With this particular comment: it's taking the thread into a generic ideological tangent, away from the topic, on a classic flamewar theme. Also, "the US supporting gangsters" is flamebait. Please avoid denunciatory rhetoric on HN generally. It kills curious conversation, which is the purpose of this site. And it usually triggers people on the other side of the issue into doing worse. Also, although you used the words "lots of evidence", the comment is shallow and uninformative. Also, the link you linked to doesn't support what you said, so calling it "relevant historical documentation" is misleading.

refurb 6y ago

You’re playing word games too. The US never armed the Taliban. Yes, the US armed anti-Soviet fighters in the 80’s and many of those fighter ended up joining the Taliban years later, but to say “the US armed the Taliban” is being dishonest.