BBC: "Russia" 'arming the Afghan Taliban', says US

Litwin · Mar 23, 2018

Let me guess the red clown and his fans will say that they don't trust to CIA, they trust to ex - KGB agent Vova, right?

"Russia is supporting and even supplying arms to the Taliban, the head of US forces in Afghanistan has told the BBC.

In an exclusive interview, Gen John Nicholson said he'd seen "destabilising activity by the Russians."

He said Russian weapons were smuggled across the Tajik border to the Taliban, but could not say in what quantity. Russia has denied such US allegations in the past, citing a lack of evidence."

Russia 'arming the Afghan Taliban', says US - BBC News

CMPancake · Mar 23, 2018

I remember the day when as a nation, both sides of the political spectrum could come together and agree that foreign governments like Russia attempting to destabilize a nation was a bad thing and that we can agree on a proper course of action. However in 2018, I have no doubt in my mind that there will be posts consisting of "But 'Merica has done it too!" and "but Obama/Clinton!"

Fraggle Rock · Mar 23, 2018

Charlie Wilson's War is about the USA arming the Afghans with weapons including shoulder firing rockets which were able to shoot down Soviet Copters. P.S. next time don't make a f-ing movie and basically laugh at the Enemy. Because one day it will bite you in the ARSE!

Captain Adverse · Mar 23, 2018

CMPancake said:
I remember the day when as a nation, both sides of the political spectrum could come together and agree that foreign governments like Russia attempting to destabilize a nation was a bad thing and that we can agree on a proper course of action. However in 2018, I have no doubt in my mind that there will be posts consisting of "But 'Merica has done it too!" and "but Obama/Clinton!"

Perhaps if you can explain our original justification for not only invading Afghanistan but also spending the last 16 years occupying it we can begin a rational discussion about "proper course of action."

As post #3 indicates, we spent a lot of time and money arming the Afghans during the Soviet occupation, which helped to maintain and successfully conclude their fight against Russian occupation.

Despite your attempt to derail responses via "Whataboutism," the fact remains we entered into a nation that borders Russia via a rationale as shoddy as the one the old Soviets did back then, and we are still there for what reasons I don't know.

Let me pose this little whataboutism for you. What if some Mexican terrorist group had blown up the Kremlin, would we allow unfettered military response by Russia in that nation at all, much less for 16 years without some action on our part?

Note: NONE of the listed 9/11 hijackers were Afghanis, most were Saudi Arabians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks

IMO we over-reacted to 9/11, should never have invaded either Iraq or Afghanistan, and sure as hell should not still be there today. But that's just me.

Rosie1 · Mar 23, 2018

No, it's not just you, Captain. We should not have invaded Iraq. We should have successfully gotten Ben Laden at Tora Bora (sp?) then left Afghanistan. Anyone who ever read history knew better. No-one has ever "conquered" Afghanistan. The Russians have been pursuing interests there since way way back.

Blue_State · Mar 23, 2018

Fraggle Rock said:
Charlie Wilson's War is about the USA arming the Afghans with weapons including shoulder firing rockets which were able to shoot down Soviet Copters. P.S. next time don't make a f-ing movie and basically laugh at the Enemy. Because one day it will bite you in the ARSE!

We could leave. Then there will be no redemption. I vote for leaving.

Blue_State · Mar 23, 2018

Rosie1 said:
No, it's not just you, Captain. We should not have invaded Iraq. We should have successfully gotten Ben Laden at Tora Bora (sp?) then left Afghanistan. Anyone who ever read history knew better. No-one has ever "conquered" Afghanistan. The Russians have been pursuing interests there since way way back.

If you have been to Afghanistan, you wouldn't really want to go back. Maybe when they get their **** togehter...but right now...nope.

poweRob · Mar 23, 2018

Rosie1 said:
No, it's not just you, Captain. We should not have invaded Iraq. We should have successfully gotten Ben Laden at Tora Bora (sp?) then left Afghanistan. Anyone who ever read history knew better. No-one has ever "conquered" Afghanistan. The Russians have been pursuing interests there since way way back.

Didn't even need to be a Tora Bora. The taliban offered up Bin Laden from the get go but Bush refused.

U.S. Rejects New Taliban Offer

The United States today rejected yet another offer by Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden for trial in a third country if the U.S. presents evidence against bin Laden and stops air attacks.

apdst · Mar 23, 2018

CMPancake said:
I remember the day when as a nation, both sides of the political spectrum could come together and agree that foreign governments like Russia attempting to destabilize a nation was a bad thing and that we can agree on a proper course of action. However in 2018, I have no doubt in my mind that there will be posts consisting of "But 'Merica has done it too!" and "but Obama/Clinton!"

There's no way you can remember that. You weren't alive during WW2; because that's the last time that happened.

Be honest, you only have the red ass because Mr. Trump is president.

poweRob · Mar 23, 2018

apdst said:
There's no way you can remember that. You weren't alive during WW2; because that's the last time that happened.

Be honest, you only have the red ass because Mr. Trump is president.

wtf? :lol:

No, through the whole cold war both sides of the aisle would often stand together to rebuke the soviet union.

apdst · Mar 23, 2018

poweRob said:
Didn't even need to be a Tora Bora. The taliban offered up Bin Laden from the get go but Bush refused.

U.S. Rejects New Taliban Offer

The United States today rejected yet another offer by Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden for trial in a third country if the U.S. presents evidence against bin Laden and stops air attacks.

Of course we refused that idiotic deal...lol

apdst · Mar 23, 2018

poweRob said:
wtf? :lol:

No, through the whole cold war both sides of the aisle would often stand together to rebuke the soviet union.

Oh right, like when a Liberal senator held secret talks with the Russian government to undermine a sitting president? Actual collusion.

poweRob · Mar 23, 2018

apdst said:
Oh right, like when a Liberal senator held secret talks with the Russian government to undermine a sitting president? Actual collusion.

Ah yes... this is yet another con conspiracy where you all believe russian intel over us intel.

apdst · Mar 23, 2018

poweRob said:
Ah yes... this is yet another con conspiracy where you all believe russian intel over us intel.

And, yet another Liberal denial of the historical facts.

I think it's cute how Liberals are all "Murica, by God!", now; beating the war drums, singing the death song...lol.

Tigerace117 · Mar 23, 2018

Captain Adverse said:
Perhaps if you can explain our original justification for not only invading Afghanistan but also spending the last 16 years occupying it we can begin a rational discussion about "proper course of action."

As post #3 indicates, we spent a lot of time and money arming the Afghans during the Soviet occupation, which helped to maintain and successfully conclude their fight against Russian occupation.

Despite your attempt to derail responses via "Whataboutism," the fact remains we entered into a nation that borders Russia via a rationale as shoddy as the one the old Soviets did back then, and we are still there for what reasons I don't know.

Let me pose this little whataboutism for you. What if some Mexican terrorist group had blown up the Kremlin, would we allow unfettered military response by Russia in that nation at all, much less for 16 years without some action on our part?

Note: NONE of the listed 9/11 hijackers were Afghanis, most were Saudi Arabians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks

IMO we over-reacted to 9/11, should never have invaded either Iraq or Afghanistan, and sure as hell should not still be there today. But that's just me.

You see, there was this terrorist attack called "9/11". It was kind of a big deal:roll:

Except Osama Bin Laden was not being hidden by the Saudis; he was being hidden by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Oh, and the hijackers being Saudi is irrelevant; terrorists have this interesting tendency to hide out in countries they aren't native to. Look at Cold War era thugs like Carlos the Jackal.

And no, the rationale was not even close to being "as shoddy as the Soviets". The USSR didn't invade Afghanistan in the wake of a terrorist attack by a group based there which killed thousands of civilians.

Oh really? We never should have overthrown the Taliban? Never should have hunted down Osama? Interesting fantasy you've got there.

Tigerace117 · Mar 23, 2018

poweRob said:
Didn't even need to be a Tora Bora. The taliban offered up Bin Laden from the get go but Bush refused.

U.S. Rejects New Taliban Offer

The United States today rejected yet another offer by Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden for trial in a third country if the U.S. presents evidence against bin Laden and stops air attacks.

Yeah.....that was never a legitimate offer. Pashtunwallah prohibits the turning over of a guest, especially to his enemies. It was a PR move.....nothing more.

poweRob · Mar 23, 2018

apdst said:
And, yet another Liberal denial of the historical facts.

I think it's cute how Liberals are all "Murica, by God!", now; beating the war drums, singing the death song...lol.

Do even YOU know what you are talking about? I seriously doubt it.

apdst · Mar 23, 2018

poweRob said:
Do even YOU know what you are talking about? I seriously doubt it.

I absolutely know what I'm talking about. Your impending meltdown proves that you know I'm right...lol

Iran armed and trained insurgents in Iraq, but no one wet themselves when Obama was trying to make friends with Iran.

MrMike · Mar 23, 2018

I'm all for stepping away from Afghanistan. It obviously will remain a self-made Islamoquagmire that requires neutralizing from time to time. On the ground, we've sprayed it for pests for far too long and gotten into bed with them. Time to learn what the Russians already found out in the 80's... Afghanistan will stay Afghanistan and will live under no heel except the tribal control of Islamists.

Captain Adverse · Mar 23, 2018

Tigerace117 said:
You see, there was this terrorist attack called "9/11". It was kind of a big deal:roll:

Yes, I was there in NYC at the time. Literally close enough to watch the buildings burn and fall.

This was a big deal...used to stampede American's into allowing the creation of the Patriot Act, and getting us embroiled in wars with 2 nations who had nothing to do with it, and that we are still occupying today.

Tigerace117 said:
Except Osama Bin Laden was not being hidden by the Saudis; he was being hidden by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Oh, and the hijackers being Saudi is irrelevant; terrorists have this interesting tendency to hide out in countries they aren't native to. Look at Cold War era thugs like Carlos the Jackal.

Yes, but there were all sorts of less costly alternatives to finding and capturing/eliminating Bin Laden, none of which required our going to war and occupying a nation for 16 years.

Tigerace117 said:
And no, the rationale was not even close to being "as shoddy as the Soviets". The USSR didn't invade Afghanistan in the wake of a terrorist attack by a group based there which killed thousands of civilians.

No?

The deployment had been variously called an "invasion" (by Western media and the rebels) or a legitimate supporting intervention (by the Soviet Union and the Afghan government) on the basis of the Brezhnev Doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War

The validity of such rationale's appear to be all in the eye (and political views) of the beholder. :shrug:

Tigerace117 said:
Oh really? We never should have overthrown the Taliban? Never should have hunted down Osama? Interesting fantasy you've got there.

I never said "never should have hunted down Osama," that is YOUR interpretation...and it is wrong. However, hunting down and killing one man did not need us to go to war costing more Americans both lives and bodily injury.

As for the Taliban control of Afghanistan? For my response to this you can see my (only) Blog:

1. I do not believe The United States is morally responsible for taking "some action" outside of our own national borders. We don't have the right nor duty to act as the "World's Policeman." I support humanitarian aid; and use of political influence to keep other nations out of foreign internal struggles.

2. Each nation is responsible for its own internal politics, no one should interfere. The people of each society must work things out on their own for there to be any chance of long-term stability. External interference typically serves to undermine the legitimacy of whichever factions wins, creating an unstable political environment ripe for further trouble.

3. It does not matter the form of political ideology that ends up in control without outside influence or interference. If it has a negative effect on the society it governs, history has shown that as long as examples of other more positive options exist outside that State, it will either collapse on it's own or it's people will eventually overthrow and replace it.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/captain-adverse/1391-time-re-introduce-myself.html

GDViking · Mar 23, 2018

apdst said:
I absolutely know what I'm talking about. Your impending meltdown proves that you know I'm right...lol

Iran armed and trained insurgents in Iraq, but no one wet themselves when Obama was trying to make friends with Iran.

Well maybe trump did, but I hear he is into that sort of thing...

Tigerace117 · Mar 23, 2018

Captain Adverse said:
Yes, I was there in NYC at the time. Literally close enough to watch the buildings burn and fall.

This was a big deal...used to stampede American's into allowing the creation of the Patriot Act, and getting us embroiled in wars with 2 nations who had nothing to do with it, and that we are still occupying today.

Yes, but there were all sorts of less costly alternatives to finding and capturing/eliminating Bin Laden, none of which required our going to war and occupying a nation for 16 years.

No?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War

The validity of such rationale's appear to be all in the eye (and political views) of the beholder. :shrug:

I never said "never should have hunted down Osama," that is YOUR interpretation...and it is wrong. However, hunting down and killing one man did not need us to go to war costing more Americans both lives and bodily injury.

As for the Taliban control of Afghanistan? For my response to this you can see my (only) Blog:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/captain-adverse/1391-time-re-introduce-myself.html

Considering the fact that the Taliban actively aided OBL in creating a safe haven, claiming they had “nothing to do with it” is a stretch at best, and Saddam literally did everything in his power to ensure people thought he was involved.

The American people want security and the impression that security isn’t going to intrude into their lives. You can’t have it both ways; either you accept that security means loss of a certain amount of privacy, or you forfeit the right to complain when terrorist attack X happens and why didn’t the CIA/FBI/whomever didn’t know about it etc etc etc.

Less costly? Like what? Insert a Special Forces Team? That was back when the Taliban still had tanks; we’d have to have rolled in anyway to support the team even if they did track OBL down quickly enough. And that is an act of war.

So. Considering the fact that Pashtunwallh means that the Taliban never would have given OBL up willingly, what “less costly” way could we have gotten OBL?

So in other words not a terrorist attack which murdered thousands of innocent people. You actually trying to compare the two is downright ludicrous.

Yeah, I don’t think there’s a single country out there which doesn’t consider murdering thousands of their civilians as justification for military action.

Oh, so you are another one of those people who think every two bit dictator and despot should be left alone to slaughter their people en masse. Noted.

Captain Adverse · Mar 23, 2018

Tigerace117 said:
Considering the fact that the Taliban actively aided OBL in creating a safe haven, claiming they had “nothing to do with it” is a stretch at best, and Saddam literally did everything in his power to ensure people thought he was involved...

So. Considering the fact that Pashtunwallh means that the Taliban never would have given OBL up willingly, what “less costly” way could we have gotten OBL?

After eliminating all the hyperbole...we get down to the pertinent question and my answer in a few words?

Patience, irresistible bounty, CIA assassination teams.

Nuff said. :coffeepap:

USViking · Mar 23, 2018

Captain Adverse said:
Perhaps if you can explain our original justification for not only invading Afghanistan but also spending the last 16 years occupying it we can begin a rational discussion about "proper course of action."

No problem.

Let me put it this way: if I was letting someone use a free room in my house and I knew he was manufacting bombs there which he was then blowing people up with, then I would be a criminal accessory.

Similarly, the Taliban government was providing safe haven for the AQ terrorists whose years of attacks had just culminated in 9/11.

We invaded Taliban Afghasnistan to destroy its criminal government and their resident terrorist assocates.

We have had to keep a presence there to ensure that Taliban and other nightcreatures do not take over again.

Captain Adverse said:
As post #3 indicates, we spent a lot of time and money arming the Afghans during the Soviet occupation, which helped to maintain and successfully conclude their fight against Russian occupation.

Yes. Good for us! We helped the victim of foreign aggression repel the aggressors.

Captain Adverse said:
Despite your attempt to derail responses via "Whataboutism," the fact remains we entered into a nation that borders Russia

You need to brush up on your geography.

Since the breakup of the USSR Afghanistan has been over 1000 miles distant from Russia.

Captain Adverse said:
via a rationale as shoddy as the one the old Soviets did back then,

Totally incorrect.

The USSR did not suffer a precipitating terrorist incident. The USA did.

Captain Adverse said:
and we are still there for what reasons I don't know.

Now that I have explained it you do know.

Captain Adverse said:
Let me pose this little whataboutism for you. What if some Mexican terrorist group had blown up the Kremlin, would we allow unfettered military response by Russia in that nation at all, much less for 16 years without some action on our part?

Not only would I allow them to respond, I would assist them in their response.

Captain Adverse said:
Note: NONE of the listed 9/11 hijackers were Afghanis, most were Saudi Arabians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijack...ber_11_attacks

Addressed above.

Captain Adverse said:
IMO we over-reacted to 9/11,

Oh. So, they blow up two great buildings and kill thousands of people and you would just say “tut-tut” and wag your finger?

Captain Adverse said:
should never have invaded either Iraq

Agree.

Captain Adverse said:
or Afghanistan, and sure as hell should not still be there today. But that's just me.

Addressed above.

USViking · Mar 23, 2018

Captain Adverse said:
I never said "never should have hunted down Osama," that is YOUR interpretation...and it is wrong. However, hunting down and killing one man did not need us to go to war costing more Americans both lives and bodily injury.

As for the Taliban control of Afghanistan? For my response to this you can see my (only) Blog:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/captain-adverse/1391-time-re-introduce-myself.html

Addressed before, but bears repeating;

We did not to to war over one man. We went to war against AQ- a terrorist organization of thousands which had been killing Americans for years, and we went to war against Taliban their complicit, accessory, criminal host government.

BBC: "Russia" 'arming the Afghan Taliban', says US

Litwin

CMPancake

No gods, no masters.

Fraggle Rock

Well-known member

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

Rosie1

Blue_State

Blue_State

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996

apdst

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996

apdst

apdst

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996

apdst

Tigerace117

Tigerace117

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996

apdst

MrMike

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

GDViking

Tigerace117

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

USViking

USViking