Afghan Taliban Writes 'Open Letter' to President Trump

[enhanced_deficit]

What would Reagaon do?
Trump doesn't have to invite them for a meeting at the White House but he should move towards a political solution; DGP puppet's dumb "war escalation" has failed badly... like almost everything else he touched:

Afghan Taliban Writes 'Open Letter' to President Trump

January 25, 2017 8:31 AM


Ayaz Gul


https://gdb.voanews.com/6F0EFC29-CBA6-4903-9961-0C24399BC29A_cx0_cy1_cw0_w987_r1_s_r1.jpg
FILE - Taliban fighters react to a speech by their senior leader in the Shindand district of Herat province, Afghanistan.


ISLAMABAD — The Taliban, in a so-called “open letter” to U.S. President Donald Trump, has called on him to help end what it denounced as a “futile” and “un-winnable” American war in Afghanistan.
A copy of the letter, written by Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, was released to journalists Wednesday.
There has been no immediate reaction from the Trump administration.
The letter blamed the United States for starting the Afghan war 15 years ago and called the presence of “foreign invading forces” in the country the principle cause for the continued human and material losses being suffered by both sides.
“It is on these basis that we send you our message to control this war of occupation launched by your military,” Mujahid wrote, reiterating that the Taliban will not end fighting until all the U.S.-led forces are withdrawn from Afghanistan.


http://www.voanews.com/a/afghan-taliban-writes-open-letter-to-president-trump/3691387.html




http://wafflesatnoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/reagan-afghan-article.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4AQ_rMRV5z8/hqdefault.jpg

[CPUd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYzsZBUavI8

[enhanced_deficit]

You might be mistaken, have not seen any MSM report saying that Al Shahab was a secretive agencies funded group or was founded by Obama.. unlike ISIS

TRUMP: OBAMA FOUNDED ISIS
http://i.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/donald-trump-obama-isis-1.gif

[69360]

What would Reagaon do?
Trump doesn't have to invite them for a meeting at the White House but he should move towards a political solution; DGP puppet's dumb "war escalation" has failed badly... like almost everything else he touched:

Afghan Taliban Writes 'Open Letter' to President Trump

January 25, 2017 8:31 AM


Ayaz Gul


https://gdb.voanews.com/6F0EFC29-CBA6-4903-9961-0C24399BC29A_cx0_cy1_cw0_w987_r1_s_r1.jpg
FILE - Taliban fighters react to a speech by their senior leader in the Shindand district of Herat province, Afghanistan.


ISLAMABAD — The Taliban, in a so-called “open letter” to U.S. President Donald Trump, has called on him to help end what it denounced as a “futile” and “un-winnable” American war in Afghanistan.
A copy of the letter, written by Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, was released to journalists Wednesday.
There has been no immediate reaction from the Trump administration.
The letter blamed the United States for starting the Afghan war 15 years ago and called the presence of “foreign invading forces” in the country the principle cause for the continued human and material losses being suffered by both sides.
“It is on these basis that we send you our message to control this war of occupation launched by your military,” Mujahid wrote, reiterating that the Taliban will not end fighting until all the U.S.-led forces are withdrawn from Afghanistan.


http://www.voanews.com/a/afghan-taliban-writes-open-letter-to-president-trump/3691387.html




http://wafflesatnoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/reagan-afghan-article.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4AQ_rMRV5z8/hqdefault.jpg




Reagan didn't meet the Taliban. He met the Mujhadeen who fought the soviets. The quote is wrong also. Reagan said that about he contras in Nicaragua, not the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan.

Don't spread lies, errr alternative facts.

[dannno]

Reagan didn't meet the Taliban. He met the Mujhadeen who fought the soviets. The quote is wrong also. Reagan said that about he contras in Nicaragua, not the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan.

Don't spread lies, errr alternative facts.

I give it a meh. It kinda depends on who you believe. Ron and Rand have both gotten flack from the media for saying that the US armed and funded Bin Laden. Many believe he was a CIA asset with the name Tim Osman. His family is rich and from Saudi Arabia. It's certainly plausible, and maybe even more than likely.

But as to how that connects with the Mujahideen -> Taliban transformation theory, well, that is probably just another CIA whitewash. The wikipedia page for the Taliban claims that they took out Mujahideen warlords in order to rise to power, so they can't be the same group. Well, it certainly could have been a faction, and most likely the faction that was controlled by the CIA. So did the group really completely change and were neither no longer controlled by the CIA? I don't think it is possible for us to know the answer to that question for certain, but again it seems that most likely I am right - since we know the Mujahideen was CIA controlled, and since they deny that the Taliban was controlled, yet there is strong evidence Bin Laden who was in the Taliban was CIA, well, all you have to do is put 2 and 2 together. The CIA always had control of these groups controlling Afghanistan, and they used it to help create a patsy for 9/11. Then they bombed the shit out of them.

[69360]

I give it a meh. It kinda depends on who you believe. Ron and Rand have both gotten flack from the media for saying that the US armed and funded Bin Laden. Many believe he was a CIA asset with the name Tim Osman. His family is rich and from Saudi Arabia. It's certainly plausible, and maybe even more than likely.

But as to how that connects with the Mujahideen -> Taliban transformation theory, well, that is probably just another CIA whitewash. The wikipedia page for the Taliban claims that they took out Mujahideen warlords in order to rise to power, so they can't be the same group. Well, it certainly could have been a faction, and most likely the faction that was controlled by the CIA. So did the group really completely change and were neither no longer controlled by the CIA? I don't think it is possible for us to know the answer to that question for certain, but again it seems that most likely I am right - since we know the Mujahideen was CIA controlled, and since they deny that the Taliban was controlled, yet there is strong evidence Bin Laden who was in the Taliban was CIA, well, all you have to do is put 2 and 2 together. The CIA always had control of these groups controlling Afghanistan, and they used it to help create a patsy for 9/11. Then they bombed the $#@! out of them.

OBL was never a member of the Taliban. OBL founded Al-Queda. The Taliban allowed AQ to have training camps in Afghanistan when they ruled the country.

Afghanistan is complicated. There never historically has been a strong central government. The warlords ruled their fiefdoms with little regard for Kabul and somewhat continue to.

OBL fought with the mughadeen when the foreign fighters joined the battle against the soviets. Yes the cia did fund the mughadeen at that point. The mujhadeen wasn't so much a group but a movement that came together to fight the soviets. All the warlords banded together to fight a common enemy. After the soviets left, the Afghan civil war broke out and they went back to fighting each other.

But OBL isn't some made up patsy. He was a member of the Bin Laden family a prominent Saudi family, his history is easily verified.

[enhanced_deficit]

Reagan didn't meet the Taliban.

I have not validated quote, you could be right on that and it is not a big material difference as long as you don't deny that Reagan praised Afghan Jihadi militants.

If you are asserting that Talibans Jihadis and Mujahideen Jihadis are not same people, what is the key difference between them?

No matter how they are named but Taliban Jihadis are essentially the same people who were the largest part of US supported Afghan Jihadis/foreign fighters alliance that were waging Islamic Jihad during Reagan era.

[69360]

I have not validated quote, you could be right on that and it is not a big material difference as long as you don't deny that Reagan praised Afghan Jihadi militants.

If you are asserting that Talibans Jihadis and Mujahideen Jihadis are not same people, what is the key difference between them?

No matter how they are named but Taliban Jihadis are essentially the same people who were the largest part of US supported Afghan Jihadis/foreign fighters alliance that were waging Islamic Jihad during Reagan era.

Sure some of the anti soviet mujahadeen probably joined the Taliban when it formed. The vast majority did not. The Taliban are a pashtun group from Helmand. All the ethnic groups put aside their differences to get rid of the soviets. Then they went back to killing each other in the civil war. The Taliban hates anyone who isn't pashtun. You also have to keep in mind that the war against the soviets was 30 some years ago. Afghanistan has just about the lowest life expectancy in the world, it's 40 something. Most of the fighters from the 80's are dead.

So no, the fighters funded by Reagan's CIA are not the Taliban of today.

[charrob]

Sure some of the anti soviet mujahadeen probably joined the Taliban when it formed. The vast majority did not. The Taliban are a pashtun group from Helmand. All the ethnic groups put aside their differences to get rid of the soviets. Then they went back to killing each other in the civil war. The Taliban hates anyone who isn't pashtun. You also have to keep in mind that the war against the soviets was 30 some years ago. Afghanistan has just about the lowest life expectancy in the world, it's 40 something. Most of the fighters from the 80's are dead.

So no, the fighters funded by Reagan's CIA are not the Taliban of today.

A few years ago i caught the end of some statements by Scott Horton on his show that back in the 1970s Afghanistan had a modern democratically elected leader. (There are pictures of Kabul I've seen as a modern city and women wearing mini-skirts and the same fashions as in the U.S. back then.) He said that the U.S. originally backed the Mujahideen to overthrow Afghanistan's democratically elected leader because that leader was friendly to the Soviets. It was only after we overthrew that leader that the Soviets came in because of the ruckus we had caused on their border. I think that was the gist of what he was saying.

So, in other words, we did to Afghanistan what we recently did to Ukraine. Only we backed Jihadists in Afghanistan instead of Nazis, which we backed in Ukraine.

Thoughts?

[69360]

Afghanistan was ruled by a king until about 73, then there was coup and the king's cousin named himself president. Then about 78 or the communists staged another coup and killed the president. The communists were pro soviet, but didn't have a real good hold on power. So the soviets invaded and installed a puppet government. The mujhadeed fought against the soviets and drove them out.

So no, it was nothing like Ukraine. None of the governments of the 70's were democratically elected.

[TheTexan]

"Unwinnable" ? We already won that war like 10 times by now

[69360]

In the last 100 years, the Afghans have defeated and driven out the British, the Soviets and the Americans. It's not called the graveyard of empires for no reason.

[charrob]

Afghanistan was ruled by a king until about 73, then there was coup and the king's cousin named himself president. Then about 78 or the communists staged another coup and killed the president. The communists were pro soviet, but didn't have a real good hold on power. So the soviets invaded and installed a puppet government. The mujhadeed fought against the soviets and drove them out.

So no, it was nothing like Ukraine. None of the governments of the 70's were democratically elected.

Thanks. The following also adds a little to the timeline; according to this, we intervened and backed the mujahadeen before the soviets invaded:




How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen:

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

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

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

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.

* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.

The above has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the indispensible, “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II” and “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower” Portions of the books can be read at: <http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm>

http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/