Ashamed of what? The Taliban was pure evil. If the photo was of American operatives in 1942 headed to occupied France to bring money to the French resistance, would this be any different?
Afghanistan was run by corrupt evil warlords who oversaw massive opium production empires. The Taliban eliminated the warlords and got rid of opium production, improving the country. The US plan to overthrow the Taliban and restore opium production predated 9/11. That's why it was ready to go after 9/11. First thing we did was restore the warload power, calling them now the legitimate government and paying them off, and making sure opium production resumed, under US protection. If 9/11 never happened the US would still have gone into Afghanistan on schedule. 9/11 had nothing to do with Afghanistan.
>> The Taliban eliminated the warlords and got rid of opium production
Yeah to become themselves the new warlords and reinstate sharia law. Not sure which one is worse but I can tell you the Taliban are not good guys either.
> You mean other than Bin Laden being there, of course.
The Taliban provided shelter to a guy who committed a terrorist attack on the US, and refused to give him up. We would never have gone in otherwise.
The US was involved in large scale operations in the 1970s and 1980s to destabilize the secular Afghan government. The US bankrolled and armed bin Laden, and much of what would become the Taliban, in their jihad against Afghanistan's then secular government.
The US was involved in operations to destabilize the USSR government that invaded and took over Afghanistan, that the USSR was using to destabilize the entire region in the effort to spread communism across the globe.
And no, the US did not bankroll and arm Bin Laden, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, or the Taliban. The Taliban has essentially nothing to do with the Mujahideen that we worked with against the USSR, popular reporting over the last few years notwithstanding. The Mujahideen were almost exclusively Afghan tribes, the Taliban were interlopers who took over from Pakistan in the years after the USSR was driven out.
In fact, the Mujahideen continued to fight the Taliban until the US invaded in October 2001 and reestablished connections with the Northern Alliance in the initial effort to drive the Taliban out.
Lets be honest, the opium supply afghanistan created, went as heroin mostly to russia and elsewhere.. a proxy war of sorts.
Thats what all this was about, the taliban or al quaida - where icing on the cake, nothing more.
It's a wonder how CIA and other 3 lettered agencies are allowed to act. Almost as sovereign states acting completly independent from the public and its scrutiny.
Ok so because a publication reports facts it is part of the deep state. I presume then that Fox, which makes shit up falls into the non-deep state type of media you get your information from.
That Reuters story is about exactly the same review the NYT article was about. But somehow one is "biased" and the other shows "how politicians will be held in black sites" even when the article doesn't actually say anything like that.
While you have yet to deliver a source actually supporting your original claim of "Trump closing down black sites in countries like Afghanistan".
Americans wonder why other countries don't always have a positive opinion of the USG. Many countries meddle with the internal affairs of others. Very few have the gumption to declare to the world that it is for the meddle-ees benefit. There's only one that has consistently taken that stance for over 75 years.
There is only one world superpower and that's the US. Everyone knows that including the US. That comes with some prerogatives such being an asshole(i.e Trump) and not suffering any consequence.
Not exactly — we Russians are also doing our Russian meddling for the good of all people involved (especially back in Soviet times). Why anybody would do that for evil? /s
There is an episode of Jack Ryan the show by Amazon Video where they pay a turk sex trafficker to guide them to a vital asset. They essentially have cash stuffed into a backpack and just hand it over to the trafficker after they locate the assets.
41 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 91.3 ms ] threadhttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/world/asia/afghanistan-mi...
(Yes, I know this report is from a period long after 9/11, but it's not like these "cultural norms" and "accommodations" are unique to the 2010 era.)
I guess we're not even trying to act as though we're ashamed anymore.
Yeah to become themselves the new warlords and reinstate sharia law. Not sure which one is worse but I can tell you the Taliban are not good guys either.
The Taliban provided shelter to a guy who committed a terrorist attack on the US, and refused to give him up. We would never have gone in otherwise.
No one in the US government wanted opium production in Afghanistan, we spent a great deal of time eradicating it when we were there.
The US was involved in large scale operations in the 1970s and 1980s to destabilize the secular Afghan government. The US bankrolled and armed bin Laden, and much of what would become the Taliban, in their jihad against Afghanistan's then secular government.
The US was involved in operations to destabilize the USSR government that invaded and took over Afghanistan, that the USSR was using to destabilize the entire region in the effort to spread communism across the globe.
And no, the US did not bankroll and arm Bin Laden, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, or the Taliban. The Taliban has essentially nothing to do with the Mujahideen that we worked with against the USSR, popular reporting over the last few years notwithstanding. The Mujahideen were almost exclusively Afghan tribes, the Taliban were interlopers who took over from Pakistan in the years after the USSR was driven out.
In fact, the Mujahideen continued to fight the Taliban until the US invaded in October 2001 and reestablished connections with the Northern Alliance in the initial effort to drive the Taliban out.
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/who...
Is he now? Last time I read anything about that, it was actually kinda the opposite:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/cia-detainee-...
After all, he also thinks "going after their families" to be a sensible tactic, why would he care about black sites being "too evil"?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/new-yo...
And your link doesn't say anything about Trump closing black sites in Afghanistan, so I'm not sure how it's even relevant to the topic at hand.
If you get arrested under the UCMJ for Treason, you can be held overseas.
While you have yet to deliver a source actually supporting your original claim of "Trump closing down black sites in countries like Afghanistan".
Consider it journalistic privilege.