• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

35 countries where the U.S. has supported fascists, drug lords and terrorists

dimensionallava

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
1,524
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
Here is a list of 35 drug lords, death squads, and terrorists that the USA has supported since the end of World War 2. Do you believe that supporting some of these groups was the wrong thing too do? If so which ones, and which ones if any do you believe actually deserved more American support? Does supporting groups like these help or hurt american interests? And how do you think this effects current diplomatic relations between these specific countries today?

The U.S. is backing Ukraine’s extreme right-wing Svoboda party and violent neo-Nazis whose armed uprising paved the way for a Western-backed coup. Events in the Ukraine are giving us another glimpse through the looking-glass of U.S. propaganda wars against fascism, drugs and terrorism. The ugly reality behind the mirror is that the U.S. government has a long and unbroken record of working with fascists, dictators, druglords and state sponsors of terrorism in every region of the world in its elusive but relentless quest for unchallenged global power.

Behind a firewall of impunity and protection from the State Department and the CIA, U.S. clients and puppets have engaged in the worst crimes known to man, from murder and torture to coups and genocide. The trail of blood from this carnage and chaos leads directly back to the steps of the U.S. Capitol and the White House. As historian Gabriel Kolko observed in 1988, “The notion of an honest puppet is a contradiction Washington has failed to resolve anywhere in the world since 1945.” What follows is a brief A to Z guide to the history of that failure.

1. Afghanistan

In the 1980s, the U.S. worked with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to overthrow Afghanistan’s socialist government. It funded, trained and armed forces led by conservative tribal leaders whose power was threatened by their country’s progress on education, women’s rights and land reform. After Mikhail Gorbachev withdrew Soviet forces in 1989, these U.S.-backed warlords tore the country apart and boosted opium production to an unprecedented level of 2,000 to 3,400 tons per year. The Taliban government cut opium production by 95% in two years between 1999 and 2001, but the U.S. invasion in 2001 restored the warlords and drug lords to power. Afghanistan now ranks 175th out of 177countries in the world for corruption, 175th out of 186 in human development, and since 2004, it has produced an unprecedented 5,300 tons of opium per year. President Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, was well known as a CIA-backed drug lord. After a major U.S. offensive in Kandahar province in 2011, Colonel Abdul Razziq was appointed provincial police chief, boosting a heroin smuggling operation that already earned him $60 million per year in one of the poorest countries in the world.

2. Albania

Between 1949 and 1953, the U.S. and U.K. set out to overthrow the government of Albania, the smallest and most vulnerable communist country in Eastern Europe. Exiles were recruited and trained to return to Albania to stir up dissent and plan an armed uprising. Many of the exiles involved in the plan were former collaborators with the Italian and German occupation during World War II. They included former Interior Minister Xhafer Deva, who oversaw the deportations of “Jews, Communists, partisans and suspicious persons” (as described in a Nazi document) to Auschwitz. Declassified U.S. documents have since revealed that Deva was one of 743 fascist war criminals recruited by the U.S. after the war.

3. Argentina

U.S. documents declassified in 2003 detail conversations between U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Argentinian Foreign Minister Admiral Guzzetti in October 1976, soon after the military junta seized power in Argentina. Kissinger explicitly approved the junta’s “dirty war,” in which it eventually killed up to 30,000, most of them young people, and stole 400 children from the families of their murdered parents. Kissinger told Guzzetti, “Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed… the quicker you succeed the better.” The U.S. Ambassador in Buenos Aires reported that Guzzetti “returned in a state of jubilation, convinced that there is no real problem with the US government over that issue.” (“Daniel Gandolfo,” “Presente!”)
west 50 years later.

35 countries where the U.S. has supported fascists, drug lords and terrorists - Salon.com
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Here is a list of 35 drug lords, death squads, and terrorists that the USA has supported since the end of World War 2. Do you believe that supporting some of these groups was the wrong thing too do? If so which ones, and which ones if any do you believe actually deserved more American support? Does supporting groups like these help or hurt american interests? And how do you think this effects current diplomatic relations between these specific countries today?



35 countries where the U.S. has supported fascists, drug lords and terrorists - Salon.com

I don't support or not support it.
This is the real world though.

Do or die, by any means necessary, is realpolitik.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The enemy of my enemy may still be my enemy, but that will not stop me from using them to my benefit.

It's called International Relations, and it has more sides, shapes, shades, and nuances than a river that flows over a thousand miles. There are no straight lines that can define or be defined by International Relations.

Once a person understands that, they can stop getting butt hurt by stories like those in the OP article - Salon.com has never understood this, as seen in the OP article.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
37,889
Reaction score
9,853
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here is a list of 35 drug lords, death squads, and terrorists that the USA has supported since the end of World War 2. Do you believe that supporting some of these groups was the wrong thing too do? If so which ones, and which ones if any do you believe actually deserved more American support? Does supporting groups like these help or hurt american interests? And how do you think this effects current diplomatic relations between these specific countries today?



35 countries where the U.S. has supported fascists, drug lords and terrorists - Salon.com


*cough cough

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

Judging from the history of Albania, a rock could have run the country better than Hoxha did.

But yeah both sides did ****ty things that's life.
 

instagramsci

economically ☭ socially ☭
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
2,227
Reaction score
803
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here is a list of 35 drug lords, death squads, and terrorists that the USA has supported since the end of World War 2. Do you believe that supporting some of these groups was the wrong thing too do? If so which ones, and which ones if any do you believe actually deserved more American support? Does supporting groups like these help or hurt american interests? And how do you think this effects current diplomatic relations between these specific countries today?



35 countries where the U.S. has supported fascists, drug lords and terrorists - Salon.com

the US will kill or aid in the killing of whoever they want if it is deemed it will further military and business interests
 

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here is a list of 35 drug lords, death squads, and terrorists that the USA has supported since the end of World War 2. Do you believe that supporting some of these groups was the wrong thing too do? If so which ones, and which ones if any do you believe actually deserved more American support? Does supporting groups like these help or hurt american interests? And how do you think this effects current diplomatic relations between these specific countries today?



35 countries where the U.S. has supported fascists, drug lords and terrorists - Salon.com

It would take way too long to go through this and provide either the proper refutation or the right context but readers should look at the very first one and notice that the DRA is merely described as Afghanistan's "socialist government" instead of the brutal regime which came to power after a Soviet coup and invasion.
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,735
Reaction score
11,510
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Here is a list of 35 drug lords, death squads, and terrorists that the USA has supported since the end of World War 2. Do you believe that supporting some of these groups was the wrong thing too do? If so which ones, and which ones if any do you believe actually deserved more American support? Does supporting groups like these help or hurt american interests? And how do you think this effects current diplomatic relations between these specific countries today?



35 countries where the U.S. has supported fascists, drug lords and terrorists - Salon.com

Me thinks we have Russians among us, every time the propaganda postings reach high levels it almost always correlates to more stupid acts by the Russians attempting to make themselves look tough and of-course better than the rest of the world. Russia has a lot to answer for and I am sure there will be more to come.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,782
Reaction score
42,993
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The enemy of my enemy may still be my enemy, but that will not stop me from using them to my benefit.

It's called International Relations, and it has more sides, shapes, shades, and nuances than a river that flows over a thousand miles. There are no straight lines that can define or be defined by International Relations.

Once a person understands that, they can stop getting butt hurt by stories like those in the OP article - Salon.com has never understood this, as seen in the OP article.
Point on.

I'd only add: "People have friends, states have interests"

Paraphrasing above, he who might be the best American foreign relations thinker of the latter half of the 20th century: Dr. Henry Kissinger.
Let's also not forget: "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." :lamo

The man is a stoic pragmatist, if there ever was one!
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Point on.

I'd only add: "People have friends, states have interests"

Paraphrasing above, he who might be the best American foreign relations thinker of the latter half of the 20th century: Dr. Henry Kissinger.
Let's also not forget: "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." :lamo

The man is a stoic pragmatist, if there ever was one!

Kissinger's wit could be compared to the air in the Sahara Desert - hot, cutting, and dry. As a pragmatist myself, I hold Kissinger's mind in high regard. Revisionists of history have not been kind to him as of late, but I am sure that as time marches on, his legacy will again shine for the brilliance he brought to the US government via the State Department as well as his professional and stoic way of maintaining his positions against dissenting sycophants of the President in the White House while offering his perspicacious, and discerning foreign policy advice to numerous Presidents.

His absence has been felt by the world.
 
Last edited:

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,782
Reaction score
42,993
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Kissinger's wit could be compared to the air in the Sahara Desert - hot, cutting, and dry. As a pragmatist myself, I hold Kissinger's mind in high regard. Revisionists of history have not been kind to him as of late, but I am sure that as time marches on, his legacy will again shine for the brilliance he brought to the US government via the State Department as well as his professional and stoic way of maintaining his positions against dissenting sycophants of the President in the White House while offering his perspicacious, and discerning foreign policy advice to numerous Presidents.

His absence has been felt by the world.
I had to check to find he was still alive. I hadn't seen him anywhere in the media as of late, but hadn't heard of his passing either.

I hold Kissinger in the very highest regards.

I think his low, monotonic, unemotional gravelly voice works to his advantage, in that it forces listeners to be quiet and remain at attention if they're to understand what he says.

Another guy that has a similar oratory delivery to Kissinger's is Noam Chomsky. Monotonic, quiet, boring in delivery, a real chore to listen to. But when you read his books his ideas are lively, energetic, and thought provoking; and you wonder how it can possibly be the same guy.

Actually, Charles Krauthammer and David Gergen are similar too. All individuals who's thoughts I greatly respect, and all that have me turn-up the volume and command my undivided attention whenever they're speaking.
 
Last edited:

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I had to check to find he was still alive. I hadn't seen him anywhere in the media as of late, but hadn't heard of his passing either.

I hold Kissinger in the very highest regards.

I think his low, monotonic, unemotional gravelly voice works to his advantage, in that it forces listeners to be quiet and remain at attention if they're to understand what he says.

Another guy that has a similar oratory delivery to Kissinger's is Noam Chomsky. Monotonic, quiet, boring in delivery, a real chore to listen to. But when you read his books his ideas are lively, energetic, and thought provoking; and you wonder how it can possibly be the same guy.

Actually, Charles Krauthammer and David Gergen are similar too. All individuals who's thoughts I greatly respect, and all that have me turn-up the volume and command my undivided attention whenever they're speaking.

Just for clarification, my comment about his absence being felt by the world was referring to his absence from the world stage, not from life.

I saw a recent interview of him and thank goodness I have replay on my TV - his verbal manner has not improved. It was like listening to a 100 year old man with a mouth full of mashed potatoes.
 

faithful_servant

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
12,533
Reaction score
5,659
Location
Beautiful Central Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Here is a list of 35 drug lords, death squads, and terrorists that the USA has supported since the end of World War 2. Do you believe that supporting some of these groups was the wrong thing too do? If so which ones, and which ones if any do you believe actually deserved more American support? Does supporting groups like these help or hurt american interests? And how do you think this effects current diplomatic relations between these specific countries today?



35 countries where the U.S. has supported fascists, drug lords and terrorists - Salon.com

You're only showing half the story. The rest of it is "What were the alternatives?". If you support Bob Smith of Bob's Great Big Drug Cartel (who has killed 500 people by boiling them in hot molasses) to overthrow Nancy Brown (who is torturing and then killing every person with more than 5 moles on their arms), is that wrong or right??
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Here is a list of 35 drug lords, death squads, and terrorists that the USA has supported since the end of World War 2. Do you believe that supporting some of these groups was the wrong thing too do? If so which ones, and which ones if any do you believe actually deserved more American support? Does supporting groups like these help or hurt american interests? And how do you think this effects current diplomatic relations between these specific countries today?



35 countries where the U.S. has supported fascists, drug lords and terrorists - Salon.com

And? What do you want to say? We were in a 50 years war in those cases. War is nasty.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The enemy was communism. Anyone that wasn't communist was an ally.

From 1941 to 45 the enemy was fascism. The Soviets and Mao's faction in China weren't fascists. That made them allies.

Sucks, but that's the way it is.
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
11,934
Reaction score
3,998
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I love how the only 2 European nations listed are Greece and France...............................
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
39,320
Reaction score
17,617
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Here is a list of 35 drug lords, death squads, and terrorists that the USA has supported since the end of World War 2. Do you believe that supporting some of these groups was the wrong thing too do? If so which ones, and which ones if any do you believe actually deserved more American support? Does supporting groups like these help or hurt american interests? And how do you think this effects current diplomatic relations between these specific countries today?



35 countries where the U.S. has supported fascists, drug lords and terrorists - Salon.com
Since you are a communist, and thus, despise places like America, do you care to run a list of terrorists, drug lords and ruthless dictators your commie brethern have supported over the last 50 years? Or do you believe places like the Soviet Union engaged only in peace and love?
 

dimensionallava

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
1,524
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
The enemy of my enemy may still be my enemy, but that will not stop me from using them to my benefit.
is there anyone on that list you felt deserved more american support than they received?

It would take way too long to go through this and provide either the proper refutation or the right context but readers should look at the very first one and notice that the DRA is merely described as Afghanistan's "socialist government" instead of the brutal regime which came to power after a Soviet coup and invasion.
well the top of the list is as good a place to start as any. Do you think that the USA was right to train, radicalize and fund the taliban? Do you think the world or the USA is better off without the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan? What world powers benefited from the preceding Taliban rule?
 

dimensionallava

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
1,524
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
Point on.

I'd only add: "People have friends, states have interests"

Paraphrasing above, he who might be the best American foreign relations thinker of the latter half of the 20th century: Dr. Henry Kissinger.
Let's also not forget: "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." :lamo

The man is a stoic pragmatist, if there ever was one!

"Nixon at one point informs Kissinger . . . that he wanted bombing of Cambodia. And Kissinger loyally transmits the order to the Pentagon to carry out a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves . . . genocide." -Noam Chomsky
 

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
is there anyone on that list you felt deserved more american support than they received?

well the top of the list is as good a place to start as any. Do you think that the USA was right to train, radicalize and fund the taliban? Do you think the world or the USA is better off without the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan? What world powers benefited from the preceding Taliban rule?

We didn't train, radicalize, or fund the Taliban.

The US never funded the Taliban, which was a new group that coalesced in the early 1990's. The US gave financial assistance to Afghan anti-Soviet militants via ISI and occasionally through independent routes which was a condition of the compact with Pakistan which took on considerable risk by allowing their Soviet occupying neighbors to be attacked by militants trained in their territory. That funding was then used to purchase weapons, munitions, medical equipment, food, trucks, etc which was funneled to a variety of groups some representing the Afghan government in exile, some went to Hekmatyer, the Islamic Dawah Group (which is now a political party), etc. The umbrella group which received the lions share of support was called the Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahadeen and consisted of a variety of Islamist, Traditionalist, and Nationalist groups many of whom have reemerged as political parties in Afghanistan today, others yes have become part of the network of opposition forces such as Hekmatyer's forces.

However the US never had more than a half dozen field agents in Afghanistan and NW Pakistan, it kept its touch to a minimum, and funding channels were rarely chosen by the US. Nor did any direct support ever go to al-Qaeda or the Taliban, the former mostly fought on funds raised from their own charitable groups. Which was true of most Arab groups that went to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

It's also worth noting that after the 5th or 6th Panjishir offensive the Pakistani's under the influence of Rabbani began to refuse Ahmed Shah Massoud's request for more support relative to the burden he was bearing in the fighting. This led to a general drift between his command and the ostensible headquarters in Pakistan. Despite the desire of the US intelligence community to push more weapons to Massoud because he was seen as more amenable, palatable, and a better post-war figure, the Pakistani's using Rabbini as an excuse pushed most of our efforts towards Hekmatyar and others closer to their general sphere both politically and geographically. US efforts to bring more supplies and material to Massoud was extremely difficult and often caused flareups with ISI and the Afghan 'government' in exile. This illustrates how difficult it was for the US to pick and choose who we wanted to support, and how much of it was left up to the conduits set up by ISI and the Afghani's internal networks.

As for the PDPA it was a brutal regime which was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people, it executed nearly 30,000 people in the prisons of Kabul, with tens of thousands of more put to death under Taraki and Amin. It was these furious crackdowns in conjunction with a heavy handed militarization of reform efforts which provoked the insurgency.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,782
Reaction score
42,993
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
"Nixon at one point informs Kissinger . . . that he wanted bombing of Cambodia. And Kissinger loyally transmits the order to the Pentagon to carry out a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves . . . genocide." -Noam Chomsky
Thanks for that quote.

You've managed to combine two of my favorite (but often diametrically opposed) politically theorists in one quote, and also included my nick! Good work in that!

I'm not going to defend every oppressive, over-reaching, or self-serving deed this country has committed. Nor am I going to defend every quote or theory of Dr's Kissinger & Chomsky.

But when you're the sole super-power and de facto top-cop in an often dangerous world, hard decisions involving collateral damage are made. I'm not going to say the U.S. hasn't been wrong in many of it's actions, but the number one priority of government is to provide the physical safety and protection of it's citizens. And as noted earlier, foreign policy is a very complex and difficult subject, often shrouded in mystery, subterfuge, and secrecy.

Where I do have large concerns though, is when our capitalist interests become intertwined with our foreign policy in a manner that's exploitative, especially at the level of individual profit rather than national security (financial or otherwise); I place the 2nd (Bush-Cheney) Iraq War firmly in this category.
 

dimensionallava

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
1,524
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
We didn't train, radicalize, or fund the Taliban.
The US never funded the Taliban, which was a new group that coalesced in the early 1990's. The US gave financial assistance to Afghan anti-Soviet militants via ISI and occasionally through independent routes which was a condition of the compact with Pakistan which took on considerable risk by allowing their Soviet occupying neighbors to be attacked by militants trained in their territory.
the USA absolutely created the taliban, have you never seen this famous photo

1024px-Reagan_sitting_with_people_from_the_Afghanistan-Pakistan_region_in_February_1983.jpg


That funding was then used to purchase weapons, munitions, medical equipment, food, trucks, etc which was funneled to a variety of groups some representing the Afghan government in exile, some went to Hekmatyer, the Islamic Dawah Group (which is now a political party), etc. The umbrella group which received the lions share of support was called the Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahadeen and consisted of a variety of Islamist, Traditionalist, and Nationalist groups many of whom have reemerged as political parties in Afghanistan today, others yes have become part of the network of opposition forces such as Hekmatyer's forces.

the pakistani president claimed that the usa funded $80 billion directly to the taliban, not to mention directly funded and supported hekmateyr who killed over 50,000 civilians in kabul in one raid alone

However the US never had more than a half dozen field agents in Afghanis tan and NW Pakistan, it kept its touch to a minimum, and funding channels were rarely chosen by the US. Nor did any direct support ever go to al-Qaeda or the Taliban, the former mostly fought on funds raised from their own charitable groups. Which was true of most Arab groups that went to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
thats just naive, the USA had massive operations going in afghanistan as well as neighboring countries, they had hundreds if not thousands of operatives involved in this. The soviets did as well, but that doesn't mean the USA didn't. ALso, charities and NGO's are often used to funnel money into operations like these, most of those charities were (and still are) CIA drug fronts

It's also worth noting that after the 5th or 6th Panjishir offensive the Pakistani's under the influence of Rabbani began to refuse Ahmed Shah Massoud's request for more support relative to the burden he was bearing in the fighting. This led to a general drift between his command and the ostensible headquarters in Pakistan. Despite the desire of the US intelligence community to push more weapons to Massoud because he was seen as more amenable, palatable, and a better post-war figure, the Pakistani's using Rabbini as an excuse pushed most of our efforts towards Hekmatyar and others closer to their general sphere both politically and geographically. US efforts to bring more supplies and material to Massoud was extremely difficult and often caused flareups with ISI and the Afghan 'government' in exile. This illustrates how difficult it was for the US to pick and choose who we wanted to support, and how much of it was left up to the conduits set up by ISI and the Afghani's internal networks.
Pakistan is one of the worlds largest military powers, and theyre involvement in afghanistan goes back to its formation. But why did the USA have desire to back massoud, why did they side with the ISI in the first place, Pakistans national interests were obvious since they shared a border, as did the soviets. But why was America (a military power from the other side of planet earth) involved in their affairs to begin with?

As for the PDPA it was a brutal regime which was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people, it executed nearly 30,000 people in the prisons of Kabul, with tens of thousands of more put to death under Taraki and Amin. It was these furious crackdowns in conjunction with a heavy handed militarization of reform efforts which provoked the insurgency.
you make it sound like they killed 30,000 all in one day? 30,000 people died in that prison over 14 years, as oppose the CIA funded attack on kabul which killed 50,000. Unless your numbers come from the soviet union who claimed that amin killed that many people and was also a CIA spy. Do you think Amin was a CIA spy, as the soviets claimed? Or are you using flimsy numbers about prison deaths, over a 14 year period to denigrate the PDPA while at same time outright excusing the slaughter of twice as many people, as "necessary" simply because it was funded by the USA. You can't have it both ways
 

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
the USA absolutely created the taliban, have you never seen this famous photo

1024px-Reagan_sitting_with_people_from_the_Afghanistan-Pakistan_region_in_February_1983.jpg




the pakistani president claimed that the usa funded $80 billion directly to the taliban, not to mention directly funded and supported hekmateyr who killed over 50,000 civilians in kabul in one raid alone

thats just naive, the USA had massive operations going in afghanistan as well as neighboring countries, they had hundreds if not thousands of operatives involved in this. The soviets did as well, but that doesn't mean the USA didn't. ALso, charities and NGO's are often used to funnel money into operations like these, most of those charities were (and still are) CIA drug fronts

Pakistan is one of the worlds largest military powers, and theyre involvement in afghanistan goes back to its formation. But why did the USA have desire to back massoud, why did they side with the ISI in the first place, Pakistans national interests were obvious since they shared a border, as did the soviets. But why was America (a military power from the other side of planet earth) involved in their affairs to begin with?

you make it sound like they killed 30,000 all in one day? 30,000 people died in that prison over 14 years, as oppose the CIA funded attack on kabul which killed 50,000. Unless your numbers come from the soviet union who claimed that amin killed that many people and was also a CIA spy. Do you think Amin was a CIA spy, as the soviets claimed? Or are you using flimsy numbers about prison deaths, over a 14 year period to denigrate the PDPA while at same time outright excusing the slaughter of twice as many people, as "necessary" simply because it was funded by the USA. You can't have it both ways

Lets go through that photo because I'm guessing you don't know who any of them actually are: One is Zamay Khalilzad who was working as a facilitator at the time, the women is an interpreter brought along by one of the Rabbani's people (the more moderate resistance vein), one is probably Maulvo Yunis Khalis (the older one with the slightly dyed beard) who later became a noted Islamist sympathizer, one is a Sebghatullah Mojadeddi, one is Pir Sayed Ahmad Gailani, and one is likely Khalis's nephew or cousin. Of these people only one became a noted Islamist, the others were respected Afghan opposition leaders and were either assassinated by the Taliban or became conventional politicians in the modern Afghan state (Mojadeddi, Gailani, etc). There was so much that was laudable about Reagan meeting with these people.

Edit: If I didn't know better I'd say you were being rather racist for assuming people in traditional Afghan garb were terrorists or Islamist militants just because of their clothing.
 
Last edited:

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
the USA absolutely created the taliban, have you never seen this famous photo

1024px-Reagan_sitting_with_people_from_the_Afghanistan-Pakistan_region_in_February_1983.jpg




the pakistani president claimed that the usa funded $80 billion directly to the taliban, not to mention directly funded and supported hekmateyr who killed over 50,000 civilians in kabul in one raid alone

thats just naive, the USA had massive operations going in afghanistan as well as neighboring countries, they had hundreds if not thousands of operatives involved in this. The soviets did as well, but that doesn't mean the USA didn't. ALso, charities and NGO's are often used to funnel money into operations like these, most of those charities were (and still are) CIA drug fronts

Pakistan is one of the worlds largest military powers, and theyre involvement in afghanistan goes back to its formation. But why did the USA have desire to back massoud, why did they side with the ISI in the first place, Pakistans national interests were obvious since they shared a border, as did the soviets. But why was America (a military power from the other side of planet earth) involved in their affairs to begin with?

you make it sound like they killed 30,000 all in one day? 30,000 people died in that prison over 14 years, as oppose the CIA funded attack on kabul which killed 50,000. Unless your numbers come from the soviet union who claimed that amin killed that many people and was also a CIA spy. Do you think Amin was a CIA spy, as the soviets claimed? Or are you using flimsy numbers about prison deaths, over a 14 year period to denigrate the PDPA while at same time outright excusing the slaughter of twice as many people, as "necessary" simply because it was funded by the USA. You can't have it both ways

Why were we involved? For the same reason the Soviet Union was involved in Latin America: because we were involved in a global war of ideologies and respective power. And, lol, no we didn't kill "50,000 people" when we attacked Kabul in 2001. Or at any other point. And the 30,000 were killed in the span of two years in one or two central prisons under Amin and Taraki.

This is clearly a subject you don't know that much about.
 

dimensionallava

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
1,524
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
Lets go through that photo because I'm guessing you don't know who any of them actually are: One is Zamay Khalilzad who was working as a facilitator at the time, the women is an interpreter brought along by one of the Rabbani's people (the more moderate resistance vein), one is probably Maulvo Yunis Khalis (the older one with the slightly dyed beard) who later became a noted Islamist sympathizer, one is a Sebghatullah Mojadeddi, one is Pir Sayed Ahmad Gailani, and one is likely Khalis's nephew or cousin. Of these people only one became a noted Islamist, the others were respected Afghan opposition leaders and were either assassinated by the Taliban or became conventional politicians in the modern Afghan state (Mojadeddi, Gailani, etc). There was so much that was laudable about Reagan meeting with these people.

Edit: If I didn't know better I'd say you were being rather racist for assuming people in traditional Afghan garb were terrorists or Islamist militants just because of their clothing.

you might be thinking of a different picture of reagan and terrorists? here are the names of the people in that photo.

Gust Avrakotos; Muhammad Omar Babarakzai; Mohammad Ghafoor Yousefzai; Habib-Ur-Rehman Hashemi; Farida Ahmadi; Mir Niamatullah and Gul Mohammad.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...hanistan-Pakistan_region_in_February_1983.jpg

this is the photo wikipedia shows under history of the taliban
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#History
 
Top Bottom