Allt fler börjar kräva att USA sätter in militär i Syrien...

Sniperace skrev:

formsvackan skrev:

Secrist skrev:Synd bara att det inte existerade några talibaner 1979.  

Dem hittade jänkarna på senare så rubriken kan nog anses vara en aning missvisande.

Det var väl snarare så att de i sin mathunger drogs ditåt, ungefär på samma vis som de olika kommunistdiktatorerna gjorde och blev de monster de var.

Kan vi skylla det på kommunismen at DEN skapade dessa monster?

För inte var de de monstren när sovjeterna attackerade, och DET hade de väl inte heller blivit om sovjheterna låtit afghanistan vara eller hur, så, till sist och syvende är det då sovjetkommunisternas fel att dessa finns

Sniperace skrev:så du menar på fullt allvar att dessa gjorde talibanerna till religiösa monster, att det var de som fick dem att bli det?
var de sådana från början, eller var det en olycklig utveckling?

Sniperace skrev:Frågan är då, var dettanågot de hade som avsikt?

Sniperace skrev:var det tråkigt att sovjeterna besegrades?

formsvackan skrev:

Sniperace skrev:så du menar på fullt allvar att dessa gjorde talibanerna till religiösa monster, att det var de som fick dem att bli det?
var de sådana från början, eller var det en olycklig utveckling?

Du ger här ett bra exempel på hur man inte ser skogen för alla träd.

Sniperace skrev:Frågan är då, var dettanågot de hade som avsikt?

Om du med "någon" menar USA var det säkerligen inget som bekymrade dem det minsta, tvärtom.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Sniperace skrev:var det tråkigt att sovjeterna besegrades?

För det afghanska folket där och då, JA.

formsvackan skrev:

Secrist skrev:Synd bara att det inte existerade några talibaner 1979.  

Dem hittade jänkarna på senare så rubriken kan nog anses vara en aning missvisande.

Sniperace skrev:

formsvackan skrev:

Sniperace skrev:så du menar på fullt allvar att dessa gjorde talibanerna till religiösa monster, att det var de som fick dem att bli det?
var de sådana från början, eller var det en olycklig utveckling?

Du ger här ett bra exempel på hur man inte ser skogen för alla träd.

Sniperace skrev:Frågan är då, var dettanågot de hade som avsikt?

Om du med "någon" menar USA var det säkerligen inget som bekymrade dem det minsta, tvärtom.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Sniperace skrev:var det tråkigt att sovjeterna besegrades?

För det afghanska folket där och då, JA.

Är du säker på det?
var de BEFRIARE av det afghanska folket?
då borde du se det som att det då vore bättre för det afghanska folket om usa stannade och helt tog befälet eller hur?

eller är det sovjetkommunismen som lockar och ser bra ut?

Secrist skrev:För det afghanska folket där och då, JA.

Ja, Sovjet har ju en lång tradition av demokrati och välstånd.  

psykfallet skrev:Argumentet om att man ljög om Irak är egentligen inget argument .

På hemmaplan står Cheney och försöker med tillkämpade brösttoner övertyga
oss om att den Syriska regimen är de enda som disponerar Saringas.

formsvackan skrev:

Sniperace skrev:

formsvackan skrev:

Sniperace skrev:så du menar på fullt allvar att dessa gjorde talibanerna till religiösa monster, att det var de som fick dem att bli det?
var de sådana från början, eller var det en olycklig utveckling?

Du ger här ett bra exempel på hur man inte ser skogen för alla träd.

Sniperace skrev:Frågan är då, var dettanågot de hade som avsikt?

Om du med "någon" menar USA var det säkerligen inget som bekymrade dem det minsta, tvärtom.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Sniperace skrev:var det tråkigt att sovjeterna besegrades?

För det afghanska folket där och då, JA.

Är du säker på det?
var de BEFRIARE av det afghanska folket?
då borde du se det som att det då vore bättre för det afghanska folket om usa stannade och helt tog befälet eller hur?

eller är det sovjetkommunismen som lockar och ser bra ut?

http://www.sakerhetspolitik.se/Konflikter/Afghanistan/Fordjupning/

-
-
Den nye kungen försökte försiktigt modernisera landet och driva en alliansfri utrikespolitik. Utvecklingen påskyndades när kungens kusin Mohammed Daoud blev premiärminister 1953, och en modern armé byggdes upp främst med sovjetisk hjälp.

Förbindelserna med Pakistan försämrades när Daoud krävde självstyre för de pashtunska klanfolken i nordvästra delen av grannlandet. 1963 avsattes Daoud av kungen men tio år senare tog han makten i en kupp, störtade kungen och utropade sig till president.

Daouds alltmer diktatoriska metoder gav honom många fiender. 1978 mördades han i en blodig militärkupp som förde det afghanska kommunistpartiet till makten under ledning av Nur Muhammed Taraki.

Tarakis radikala regim ville snabbt modernisera Afghanistan i socialistisk riktning genom att bland annat förändra jordbruket och utbildningsväsendet och ge kvinnorna en bättre ställning. Det väckte konservativa klanledares och muslimska prästers vrede och snart utbröt revolter på olika håll i landet.
-
-


Om du nu vänt kappan och föredrar ett fanatiskt religiöst styre må du naturligtvis göra så. Min tro är att det afghanska folket lidit minst av Tarakis regim.

RedCloud skrev:

DMustaine skrev:Du verkar inte ha några problem med att stödja en diktator som med kemvapen slaktar sin befolkning!

ha ha, varför har du otur varje gång du tänker, minska lite på ditt alkoholintag ska du se att det ordnar sig med tänkandet.

Islamister i Syrien = bra

Islamister någon annan stans i världen = stygga

Ha ha, vilka miffon ni är.....

Infra skrev:

RedCloud skrev:

DMustaine skrev:Du verkar inte ha några problem med att stödja en diktator som med kemvapen slaktar sin befolkning!

ha ha, varför har du otur varje gång du tänker, minska lite på ditt alkoholintag ska du se att det ordnar sig med tänkandet.

Islamister i Syrien = bra

Islamister någon annan stans i världen = stygga

Ha ha, vilka miffon ni är.....

Al Quaida - dumma.

Al Quaida i Syrien - snälla.


Högerlogik.  

Secrist skrev:

formsvackan skrev:

Secrist skrev:Synd bara att det inte existerade några talibaner 1979.  

Dem hittade jänkarna på senare så rubriken kan nog anses vara en aning missvisande.

Påhittade av USA? Tror inte du hittar den typen av konspirationsteorier ens på de mest vänsterextrema sidor man kan hitta på nätet.

SDsecrist skrev:Påhittade av USA?

Sniperace skrev:JAg har inte vänt någon jävla kapa, och jag trodde inte du var en sådan tillskyndare av Sovjet så du hellre såg dem som härskare där än att de var fria, och vi vet ju alla vart varenda kommunistland hamnat, med åsiktsförtryck och mördande av de som opponerade sig

formsvackan skrev:

Secrist skrev:

formsvackan skrev:

Secrist skrev:Synd bara att det inte existerade några talibaner 1979.  

Dem hittade jänkarna på senare så rubriken kan nog anses vara en aning missvisande.

Påhittade av USA? Tror inte du hittar den typen av konspirationsteorier ens på de mest vänsterextrema sidor man kan hitta på nätet.

Duger Wiki till att börja med ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Role_of_the_Pakistani_military

The Taliban were largely founded by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence The ISI used the Taliban to establish a regime in Afghanistan which would be favorable to Pakistan, as they were trying to gain strategic depth. Since the creation of the Taliban, the ISI and the Pakistani military have given financial, logistical and military support.
Saudi Arabia provided financial support

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban's_rise_to_power

During the power vacuum created by the Soviet troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, the country was torn apart by warring mujahideen groups and the ISI of Pakistan grasped the chance to wield power in the region by fostering a previously unknown Kandahari student movement. They continued to support the Taliban, as Pakistani allies, in their push to conquer Afghanistan in the 1990s.

Although there isn't any evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets


Fortsätt gärna med Human Rights Watch.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm

Pakistan has a history of military support for different factions within Afghanistan, extending at least as far back as the early 1970s. During the 1980s, Pakistan, which was host to more than two million Afghan refugees, was the most significant front-line state serving as a secure base for the mujahidin fighting against the Soviet intervention. Pakistan also served, in the 1980s, as a U.S. stalking horse: the U.S., through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), granted Pakistan wide discretion in channeling some U.S.$2-3 billion worth of covert assistance to the mujahidin, training over 80,000 of them. Even after the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, serving and former Pakistani military officers continued to provide training and advisory services in training camps within Afghanistan and eventually to Taliban forces in combat.
-
-
Pakistan also sought to quell local support for Afghanistan's ambitions of redrawing the Durand line. Thus, Pakistan came to throw its support behind the Hizb-i Islami of Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, a Pashtun-dominated group that espoused an Islamist rather than nationalist agenda. Because the U.S. granted Pakistan wide discretion in channeling its covert assistance to the mujahidin based in Pakistan, Pakistan was able to give Hikmatyar the lion's share, though not enough to compensate for the group's internal weaknesses. Hikmatyar's failure to defeat the Afghan government forces under Defense Minister Massoud and take Kabul left Pakistani policy temporarily at a loss in 1993-94 and searching for a new partner.

The subsequent shift to the Taliban also reflected changes in Pakistan's domestic politics. Newly elected in 1993, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto sought to move away from Hikmatyar and the ISI and find new ways to open trade routes to Central Asia. Under pressure from the U.S. after a Pakistan-backed group kidnapped and murdered Western tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir, the government also sought to put some political distance between itself and the war in Afghanistan.

Support for the Taliban under Bhutto resided mainly in the interior ministry, according to some analysts. According to Ahmed Rashid, Bhutto's interior minister, Gen. Naseerullah Babar, created the Afghan Trade Development Cell in the ministry ostensibly to promote trade routes to Central Asia but also to provide the Taliban with funds. Moreover, says Rashid, the state-owned Pakistan Telecommunications Corporation set up a telephone network for the Taliban; the public works department repaired roads and provided electricity; the paramilitary Frontier Corps, a part of the interior ministry, set up a wireless network for Taliban commanders; the Civil Aviation Authority repaired Qandahar airport and Taliban fighter jets; and Radio Pakistan provided technical support to the Taliban's official radio service, Radio Shariat.


Anser du detta vara för "vänsterextremt" kan du gå vidare med Zbigniew Brzezinskis egna ord. Börja gärna här.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

formsvackan skrev:

Sniperace skrev:JAg har inte vänt någon jävla kapa, och jag trodde inte du var en sådan tillskyndare av Sovjet så du hellre såg dem som härskare där än att de var fria, och vi vet ju alla vart varenda kommunistland hamnat, med åsiktsförtryck och mördande av de som opponerade sig

Valet som fanns var mellan Tarakis regim och konservativa klanledare / muslimska präster. Jag föredrar å det afghanska folket vägnar Taraki, du föredrar ....... vad då ?

Håll dig till din ursprungliga fråga. Slingrar du dig gäller naturligtvis inte längre mitt svar.

DirtyDog skrev:

DMustaine skrev:...det fattar du väl själv att användandet av kemvapen och rädslan för att terrorgrupper ska få tag i dessa är huvudorsaken till att man ev slår till. Gör man inget så är det ju detsamma som ett greencard för att fortsätta användningen av kemvapen både i Syrien och andra konflikter. "Pengar är drivkraften" kan du stoppa upp i ditt spinkiga förmodligen svarta arsle!

Fast i detta fallet så slåss väl de "riktiga" terroristerna (Brödraskapets polare) mot Assad och ingen vet väl ännu exakt VAD det är som dödat folk och HUR?

En gissning (som i mina ögon är troligare än att Assads styrkor i ett skede när de gör framsteg använder dem) är att INGEN av sidorna medvetet har använt dem.  De kan ha funnits lagrade i området och träffats av granateld eller så är det en helt vanlig kemisk fabrik som har träffats och läckt ut något.
Amerikanerna borde alltså inte överila sig i detta fall även ifall bombande av syriens flygvapen aldrig skulle skada.   

Sniperace skrev:

formsvackan skrev:

Secrist skrev:

formsvackan skrev:

Secrist skrev:Synd bara att det inte existerade några talibaner 1979.  

Dem hittade jänkarna på senare så rubriken kan nog anses vara en aning missvisande.

Påhittade av USA? Tror inte du hittar den typen av konspirationsteorier ens på de mest vänsterextrema sidor man kan hitta på nätet.

Duger Wiki till att börja med ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Role_of_the_Pakistani_military

The Taliban were largely founded by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence The ISI used the Taliban to establish a regime in Afghanistan which would be favorable to Pakistan, as they were trying to gain strategic depth. Since the creation of the Taliban, the ISI and the Pakistani military have given financial, logistical and military support.
Saudi Arabia provided financial support

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban's_rise_to_power

During the power vacuum created by the Soviet troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, the country was torn apart by warring mujahideen groups and the ISI of Pakistan grasped the chance to wield power in the region by fostering a previously unknown Kandahari student movement. They continued to support the Taliban, as Pakistani allies, in their push to conquer Afghanistan in the 1990s.

Although there isn't any evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets


Fortsätt gärna med Human Rights Watch.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm

Pakistan has a history of military support for different factions within Afghanistan, extending at least as far back as the early 1970s. During the 1980s, Pakistan, which was host to more than two million Afghan refugees, was the most significant front-line state serving as a secure base for the mujahidin fighting against the Soviet intervention. Pakistan also served, in the 1980s, as a U.S. stalking horse: the U.S., through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), granted Pakistan wide discretion in channeling some U.S.$2-3 billion worth of covert assistance to the mujahidin, training over 80,000 of them. Even after the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, serving and former Pakistani military officers continued to provide training and advisory services in training camps within Afghanistan and eventually to Taliban forces in combat.
-
-
Pakistan also sought to quell local support for Afghanistan's ambitions of redrawing the Durand line. Thus, Pakistan came to throw its support behind the Hizb-i Islami of Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, a Pashtun-dominated group that espoused an Islamist rather than nationalist agenda. Because the U.S. granted Pakistan wide discretion in channeling its covert assistance to the mujahidin based in Pakistan, Pakistan was able to give Hikmatyar the lion's share, though not enough to compensate for the group's internal weaknesses. Hikmatyar's failure to defeat the Afghan government forces under Defense Minister Massoud and take Kabul left Pakistani policy temporarily at a loss in 1993-94 and searching for a new partner.

The subsequent shift to the Taliban also reflected changes in Pakistan's domestic politics. Newly elected in 1993, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto sought to move away from Hikmatyar and the ISI and find new ways to open trade routes to Central Asia. Under pressure from the U.S. after a Pakistan-backed group kidnapped and murdered Western tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir, the government also sought to put some political distance between itself and the war in Afghanistan.

Support for the Taliban under Bhutto resided mainly in the interior ministry, according to some analysts. According to Ahmed Rashid, Bhutto's interior minister, Gen. Naseerullah Babar, created the Afghan Trade Development Cell in the ministry ostensibly to promote trade routes to Central Asia but also to provide the Taliban with funds. Moreover, says Rashid, the state-owned Pakistan Telecommunications Corporation set up a telephone network for the Taliban; the public works department repaired roads and provided electricity; the paramilitary Frontier Corps, a part of the interior ministry, set up a wireless network for Taliban commanders; the Civil Aviation Authority repaired Qandahar airport and Taliban fighter jets; and Radio Pakistan provided technical support to the Taliban's official radio service, Radio Shariat.


Anser du detta vara för "vänsterextremt" kan du gå vidare med Zbigniew Brzezinskis egna ord. Börja gärna här.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

så packistan är USA?
och som du själv kopierade så finns det tydligen INGA bevis att cia var inblandade, och vad jag vet var talibanerna DÅ inte religiösa dårar som förtryckte folket med religiösa lagar med stening avrättning av avf'ällingar osv, tror någon att det var DET usa stödde när de stödde MOTSTÅNDSRÖRELSE mot SOVJETISK INVASION, och den FÖRSVARAR du?

Då är USA,s lika försvarbar, och du borde stötta den och hoppas på att den leder till demokrati, vilket inte sovjets skulle gjort

Sniperace skrev:

formsvackan skrev:

Secrist skrev:

formsvackan skrev:

Secrist skrev:Synd bara att det inte existerade några talibaner 1979.  

Dem hittade jänkarna på senare så rubriken kan nog anses vara en aning missvisande.

Påhittade av USA? Tror inte du hittar den typen av konspirationsteorier ens på de mest vänsterextrema sidor man kan hitta på nätet.

Duger Wiki till att börja med ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Role_of_the_Pakistani_military

The Taliban were largely founded by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence The ISI used the Taliban to establish a regime in Afghanistan which would be favorable to Pakistan, as they were trying to gain strategic depth. Since the creation of the Taliban, the ISI and the Pakistani military have given financial, logistical and military support.
Saudi Arabia provided financial support

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban's_rise_to_power

During the power vacuum created by the Soviet troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, the country was torn apart by warring mujahideen groups and the ISI of Pakistan grasped the chance to wield power in the region by fostering a previously unknown Kandahari student movement. They continued to support the Taliban, as Pakistani allies, in their push to conquer Afghanistan in the 1990s.

Although there isn't any evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets


Fortsätt gärna med Human Rights Watch.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm

Pakistan has a history of military support for different factions within Afghanistan, extending at least as far back as the early 1970s. During the 1980s, Pakistan, which was host to more than two million Afghan refugees, was the most significant front-line state serving as a secure base for the mujahidin fighting against the Soviet intervention. Pakistan also served, in the 1980s, as a U.S. stalking horse: the U.S., through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), granted Pakistan wide discretion in channeling some U.S.$2-3 billion worth of covert assistance to the mujahidin, training over 80,000 of them. Even after the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, serving and former Pakistani military officers continued to provide training and advisory services in training camps within Afghanistan and eventually to Taliban forces in combat.
-
-
Pakistan also sought to quell local support for Afghanistan's ambitions of redrawing the Durand line. Thus, Pakistan came to throw its support behind the Hizb-i Islami of Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, a Pashtun-dominated group that espoused an Islamist rather than nationalist agenda. Because the U.S. granted Pakistan wide discretion in channeling its covert assistance to the mujahidin based in Pakistan, Pakistan was able to give Hikmatyar the lion's share, though not enough to compensate for the group's internal weaknesses. Hikmatyar's failure to defeat the Afghan government forces under Defense Minister Massoud and take Kabul left Pakistani policy temporarily at a loss in 1993-94 and searching for a new partner.

The subsequent shift to the Taliban also reflected changes in Pakistan's domestic politics. Newly elected in 1993, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto sought to move away from Hikmatyar and the ISI and find new ways to open trade routes to Central Asia. Under pressure from the U.S. after a Pakistan-backed group kidnapped and murdered Western tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir, the government also sought to put some political distance between itself and the war in Afghanistan.

Support for the Taliban under Bhutto resided mainly in the interior ministry, according to some analysts. According to Ahmed Rashid, Bhutto's interior minister, Gen. Naseerullah Babar, created the Afghan Trade Development Cell in the ministry ostensibly to promote trade routes to Central Asia but also to provide the Taliban with funds. Moreover, says Rashid, the state-owned Pakistan Telecommunications Corporation set up a telephone network for the Taliban; the public works department repaired roads and provided electricity; the paramilitary Frontier Corps, a part of the interior ministry, set up a wireless network for Taliban commanders; the Civil Aviation Authority repaired Qandahar airport and Taliban fighter jets; and Radio Pakistan provided technical support to the Taliban's official radio service, Radio Shariat.


Anser du detta vara för "vänsterextremt" kan du gå vidare med Zbigniew Brzezinskis egna ord. Börja gärna här.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

så packistan är USA?
och som du själv kopierade så finns det tydligen INGA bevis att cia var inblandade, och vad jag vet var talibanerna DÅ inte religiösa dårar som förtryckte folket med religiösa lagar med stening avrättning av avf'ällingar osv, tror någon att det var DET usa stödde när de stödde MOTSTÅNDSRÖRELSE mot SOVJETISK INVASION, och den FÖRSVARAR du?

Då är USA,s lika försvarbar, och du borde stötta den och hoppas på att den leder till demokrati, vilket inte sovjets skulle gjort

Sniperace skrev:så packistan är USA?

Infra skrev:

Sniperace skrev:

formsvackan skrev:

Secrist skrev:

formsvackan skrev:

Secrist skrev:Synd bara att det inte existerade några talibaner 1979.  

Dem hittade jänkarna på senare så rubriken kan nog anses vara en aning missvisande.

Påhittade av USA? Tror inte du hittar den typen av konspirationsteorier ens på de mest vänsterextrema sidor man kan hitta på nätet.

Duger Wiki till att börja med ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Role_of_the_Pakistani_military

The Taliban were largely founded by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence The ISI used the Taliban to establish a regime in Afghanistan which would be favorable to Pakistan, as they were trying to gain strategic depth. Since the creation of the Taliban, the ISI and the Pakistani military have given financial, logistical and military support.
Saudi Arabia provided financial support

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban's_rise_to_power

During the power vacuum created by the Soviet troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, the country was torn apart by warring mujahideen groups and the ISI of Pakistan grasped the chance to wield power in the region by fostering a previously unknown Kandahari student movement. They continued to support the Taliban, as Pakistani allies, in their push to conquer Afghanistan in the 1990s.

Although there isn't any evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets


Fortsätt gärna med Human Rights Watch.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm

Pakistan has a history of military support for different factions within Afghanistan, extending at least as far back as the early 1970s. During the 1980s, Pakistan, which was host to more than two million Afghan refugees, was the most significant front-line state serving as a secure base for the mujahidin fighting against the Soviet intervention. Pakistan also served, in the 1980s, as a U.S. stalking horse: the U.S., through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), granted Pakistan wide discretion in channeling some U.S.$2-3 billion worth of covert assistance to the mujahidin, training over 80,000 of them. Even after the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, serving and former Pakistani military officers continued to provide training and advisory services in training camps within Afghanistan and eventually to Taliban forces in combat.
-
-
Pakistan also sought to quell local support for Afghanistan's ambitions of redrawing the Durand line. Thus, Pakistan came to throw its support behind the Hizb-i Islami of Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, a Pashtun-dominated group that espoused an Islamist rather than nationalist agenda. Because the U.S. granted Pakistan wide discretion in channeling its covert assistance to the mujahidin based in Pakistan, Pakistan was able to give Hikmatyar the lion's share, though not enough to compensate for the group's internal weaknesses. Hikmatyar's failure to defeat the Afghan government forces under Defense Minister Massoud and take Kabul left Pakistani policy temporarily at a loss in 1993-94 and searching for a new partner.

The subsequent shift to the Taliban also reflected changes in Pakistan's domestic politics. Newly elected in 1993, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto sought to move away from Hikmatyar and the ISI and find new ways to open trade routes to Central Asia. Under pressure from the U.S. after a Pakistan-backed group kidnapped and murdered Western tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir, the government also sought to put some political distance between itself and the war in Afghanistan.

Support for the Taliban under Bhutto resided mainly in the interior ministry, according to some analysts. According to Ahmed Rashid, Bhutto's interior minister, Gen. Naseerullah Babar, created the Afghan Trade Development Cell in the ministry ostensibly to promote trade routes to Central Asia but also to provide the Taliban with funds. Moreover, says Rashid, the state-owned Pakistan Telecommunications Corporation set up a telephone network for the Taliban; the public works department repaired roads and provided electricity; the paramilitary Frontier Corps, a part of the interior ministry, set up a wireless network for Taliban commanders; the Civil Aviation Authority repaired Qandahar airport and Taliban fighter jets; and Radio Pakistan provided technical support to the Taliban's official radio service, Radio Shariat.


Anser du detta vara för "vänsterextremt" kan du gå vidare med Zbigniew Brzezinskis egna ord. Börja gärna här.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

så packistan är USA?
och som du själv kopierade så finns det tydligen INGA bevis att cia var inblandade, och vad jag vet var talibanerna DÅ inte religiösa dårar som förtryckte folket med religiösa lagar med stening avrättning av avf'ällingar osv, tror någon att det var DET usa stödde när de stödde MOTSTÅNDSRÖRELSE mot SOVJETISK INVASION, och den FÖRSVARAR du?

Då är USA,s lika försvarbar, och du borde stötta den och hoppas på att den leder till demokrati, vilket inte sovjets skulle gjort

Nu börjar Snipern att svänga. Snart står han på rebellernas sida igen.   

Infra skrev: Nu börjar Snipern att svänga. Snart står han på rebellernas sida igen.