As in the past, Afghan war lords sort of go with the Flow in the short term, but I predict what ever deal the U.S. makes to sabe its ineffective government there Will not last long. As a state, Afghanistan has never had much success working togather, except when outsiders such as the Brits, Russians, and Americas caused a threat to unite them against an outside evil. Even as the back to back threats from Russians then the U.S. have not united them. The Northern Alliance was happy to work for the U.S. when it paid a bounty on so called terrorists that fell into their hands. There is a famous case of 4 Pakistanís who had no radical history had real establishment Jobs in London, one with Boots the chemists. They came to Pakistan early for a family wedding, to kill time they became tourists in Afghanistan aout the time the Americans attacked, were picked up by the Northern Alliance for cash, and ended in Guantánamo. The only reason they were released was Tony Blair was taking flack on the home front, and these established British families had lawyers who pushed the habeus corpus button. The result was the bogus evidence against them fell apart. One problema is that one of the 4 picked up at the same time has been lost somewhere and is still missing. Basicly what the Northern Alliance was doing is picking up local political enemies and selling them to the Americans as terrorists, getting rid ofpolitical enemies and getting paid for it at the same time. One advantage of living outside of the U.S. where the press environment is freer, many of these stories never reach the American public but are common knowledge within the E.U. countries. I was in Scotland for a Little over a week before Christmas and really shocked at both the trivia that filled even the better British press, and the stories not covered I had been following in Spain before and after my trip. A lot of the bogus British journalism appears here at Delphi on the Irish site, often recycled from the U.K. after it is already discredited in Europe.

RGoss99 said:

As in the past, Afghan war lords sort of go with the Flow in the short term, but I predict what ever deal the U.S. makes to sabe its ineffective government there Will not last long. As a state, Afghanistan has never had much success working togather, except when outsiders such as the Brits, Russians, and Americas caused a threat to unite them against an outside evil. Even as the back to back threats from Russians then the U.S. have not united them. 

What threat to them posed by Russia? Russian troops can't be trusted not to defect anywhere - even to the enemy. Many Spetznats are supposed to have stayed in Afghanistan. No helicopters used, same reason.

RGoss99 said:

The Northern Alliance was happy to work for the U.S. when it paid a bounty on so called terrorists that fell into their hands. There is a famous case of 4 Pakistanís who had no radical history had real establishment Jobs in London, one with Boots the chemists. They came to Pakistan early for a family wedding, to kill time they became tourists in Afghanistan aout the time the Americans attacked, were picked up by the Northern Alliance for cash, and ended in Guantánamo. The only reason they were released was Tony Blair was taking flack on the home front, and these established British families had lawyers who pushed the habeus corpus button. The result was the bogus evidence against them fell apart. One problema is that one of the 4 picked up at the same time has been lost somewhere and is still missing. Basicly what the Northern Alliance was doing is picking up local political enemies and selling them to the Americans as terrorists, getting rid ofpolitical enemies and getting paid for it at the same time. 

I don't recall that. But its very believable. 

RGoss99 said:

One advantage of living outside of the U.S. where the press environment is freer, many of these stories never reach the American public but are common knowledge within the E.U. countries. I was in Scotland for a Little over a week before Christmas and really shocked at both the trivia that filled even the better British press, and the stories not covered I had been following in Spain before and after my trip. A lot of the bogus British journalism appears here at Delphi on the Irish site, often recycled from the U.K. after it is already discredited in Europe.

I believe you. Had the same when I was in the Middle East. Stories from Kenya and India and all sorts, rather little from the UK.

I'm shocked that we've demonised the secular Syrian regime that might torture its opponents (like us) but was relatively open to the West. Girls went to school, alcohol was sold to the public, minorities were protected.

It was never a hell-hole - even though it was groaning under the weight of a huge number of Palestinian refugees. Assad survived - because the entire administration and all the police are invested in his secular regime. Our attempts to get rid of him would have caused a huge explosion in crime and an appalling disaster on all the people who make society run.

Compare that with our friends the Saudis.

This is Ed Husain who went on to become a top government advisor on handling extremism, said:

... Working for the British Council in Saudi Arabia was a radically different experience from my time in Syria.

Students in Syria were intellectually engaged with current affairs and progress in science and technology, brought up subjects for discussion in class, and enjoyed comparing Western culture with Arab traditions.

Moreover, British Council managers in Syria fully understood and helped realize the raison d'etre of the Council: to promote modem Britain in all its diversity. Thus gay and Asian teachers, for example, were welcomed and supported.

In Saudi Arabia I felt as though I were working for a Saudi organization, not a British one. Nepotism, corruption, sexism, and racism were tolerated because we could not be seen to offend 'local culture'.

Why is the British Council in Syria more boisterous than its counterpart in Saudi, when we consider Syria to be part of the 'axis of evil', and Saudi Arabia an 'ally' in the fight against terrorism? https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eb-zCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT236

This is a Zionist enforcer in another Forum stating the obvious, the Saudi culture is nasty whereas the Iranian one (so far, before we destroy it) is charming.

Just think of [Saudi Arabia] as Beardy Headchopper Central.

Is it just a coincidence that the perfect caliphate that IS wanted to build seems a lot like Saudi Arabia?

Everyone I know who has travelled to Iran says what an interesting place it is and how interesting and friendly the people are. I've never heard similar tributes from the ones who spent time in Saudi Arabia.

So the US and the UK has befriended just about the nastiest regime on earth.

We've sided with the bad guys against two sets of (slightly) good guys!

Remembered that we armed AQ against the Russians in Afghanistan, in fact a lot of damage to U.S. and U.K. trioops was provided by the U.S. arms industry. Above however the various interests in Afghanistan were pretty united against the Russians which was our first connections with the Northern Alliance tribes. As for the other, there was a very good documentary British film about the Pakistanis, sold to the U.S. and sent to Guantanamo, basicly got off because of internal British pressure against Blair. I wish I could remember the name of the film which included a lot of the bogus evidence used by the Americans in Guantanamo. One piece was supposedly a film of one of the Pakistanis attending a "radical" London mosque. but it was fuzzy a best and remember that all these "bearded towel heads look alike anyway" especially to a culture that is already prejudiced. Same racial prejudice that got that got that wanna be cop in Florida off for killing a kid armed with a packet of gummy bears, (Trevan).

RGoss99 said:

Remembered that we armed AQ against the Russians in Afghanistan, in fact a lot of damage to U.S. and U.K. trioops was provided by the U.S. arms industry. Above however the various interests in Afghanistan were pretty united against the Russians which was our first connections with the Northern Alliance tribes.

The Afghans were nicely developing with a government that was friendly with its neighbour.

'Car bombs and suicide bombers were unknown in Soviet-era Kabul' In this extract from his 2011 book, Ghosts of Afghanistan, Jonathan Steele recalls his first visit to Kabul, which in 1981, was firmly under Soviet control http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/27/no-car-bombs-soviet-kabul

The USSR were backing the sovereign (and universally recognised) government of Afghanistan against an insurgency created entirely by the US.

The USSR had quite perfectly sound self-protection reasons for doing so - Reagan's arming jihadis would poison relations with their own Muslim minorities.

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html (re-posted 15 October 2001)

The Wacky chooses to deceive us in the introduction by rejecting the above but still says this:

Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[2] funding began with $20-$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.[1] Funding continued after 1989 as the mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah's PDPA during the civil war in Afghanistan (1989-1992).[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

However, lower down the same heavily western dominated article makes clear what really happened:

In March 1979, "CIA sent several covert action options relating to Afghanistan to the SCC [Special Coordination Committee]" of the United States National Security Council. At a March 30 meeting, U.S. Department of Defense representative Walter B. Slocombe "asked if there was value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, 'sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire?'"[8] When asked to clarify this remark, Slocombe explained: "Well, the whole idea was that if the Soviets decided to strike at this tar baby [Afghanistan] we had every interest in making sure that they got stuck."[9]

... In May 1979, U.S. officials secretly began meeting with rebel leaders through Pakistani government contacts. A former Pakistani military official claimed that he personally introduced a CIA official to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar that month (Freedom of Information Act requests for records describing these meetings have been denied).[10] After additional meetings on April 6 and July 3, Carter signed a "presidential 'finding'" that "authorized the CIA to spend just over $500,000" on non-lethal aid to the mujahideen, which "seemed at the time a small beginning."[7][8][11]

Brzezinski later claimed that "We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would."[12][13][14] According to Brzezinski, he became convinced by mid-1979 that the Soviets were going to invade Afghanistan regardless of U.S. policy due to the Carter administration's failure to respond aggressively to Soviet activity in Africa, but - despite the risk of unintended consequences - support for the mujahideen could be an effective way to prevent Soviet aggression beyond Afghanistan (particularly in Brzezinski's native Poland).[9]

The full significance of the U.S. sending aid to the mujahideen prior to the invasion is debated among scholars. Some assert that it directly, and even deliberately, provoked the Soviets to send in troops.[15][16][17][18][19]

... Carter himself has stated that encouraging a Soviet invasion was "not my intention."[20] Gates recounted: "No one in the Carter Administration wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan and no one, as I can recall at least, ever advocated attempting to induce them to invade ... Only after the Soviet invasion did some advocate making the Soviets 'bleed' in their own Vietnam."[9] Ibid.

Buried deep in the article is this:

More than $20 billion in U.S. funds were funneled into the country to train and arm the Afghan resistance groups.[47]

Get that? $20 billion (other sources say $40 billion) worth of arms handed out to the very worst and most terrorist of jihadis.

Difficult to believe that the US ever carried out a policy this evil, I hear you say?

Just imagine what that amount of weaponry would do to the US if it was handed out on the streets of Los Angeles and Washington.

And once again it's all my fault.

You lead , you set the rules , you give fair warning then you act otherwise as now you end up with the inmates taking over .

You either have rules or you dont .

BM

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

And once again it's all my fault.

It is rather.

You're harassing an 80 year old while encouraging lying fraud (or maybe cover-up of fraud) about the Holocaust and the kidnap and torture of children.

So in all his 80 years he has not ever been told about rules and to shut up when told to.???

And this coming from you? Who has an opinion and “proof” on every subject that ever came up, to then switch immediately to your pathological obsession about the holocaust and Nazis?

learn to shut up before we all put you on ignore forever!

Di (amina046) said:

So in all his 80 years he has not ever been told about rules and to shut up when told to.???

You should look at yourself, harassing an 80 year old.

bml00 said:

You either have rules or you dont

You're right.

You and Berry hijack every single thread and turn it into Jewfest.

You're both banned for a week.

Happy I'm taking a stand?