Hi Hyro,
If you refer back to
Message 92 I give supporting evidence for what you are disagreeing with.
I provide the source in that message. From the link:
quote:
...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. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war." FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who has been fired from the agency for disclosing sensitive information, has claimed the United States was on intimate terms with Taliban and Al-Qaeda, using them to further certain goals in Central Asia.
So, according to the above statement.
Hyro writes:
Well, yes and no. The US definitely gave weaponry to the Afghan resitance, like US made Stinger missiles.
"By 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war" - that seems like a shit-load of weapons, and not just some Stinger missles.
Oni writes:
And the US knew what type of group they were but at the time they were beneficial.
Hyro writes:
No, not really.
Yes, the US did know who the ISI was recruiting (radical soldiers lead by Bin Laden) but they didn't care.
Oni writes:
You can't support a monster, supply it weapons and then question why they are commit horrific acts on their own people.
Hyro writes:
That logic fails because things change, and no one had the luxury of foresight
When they recruit radical soldiers, and allow the ISI freedom to choose such soldiers, that's not "lacking foresight."
There is plenty of suffering the US and all nations turn a blind eye to because intervention is tricky business. You have to prioritize because if either way you play it, you call it a humanitarian mission and they'll accuse you of interventionism, you do nothing they'll accuse of isolationism.
I agree.
But RiverRat was claiming we needed to stay in Afghan now for
humanitarian reasons. But we've been there going on 9 years. We have caused much of the problems that are currently harming that country (to include bringing the Taliban and Bin Laden into that country), so IMO the "humanitarian" excuse is bogus.
- Oni
™ Version 4.2
