General Discussion

eridani

(51,907 posts) Tue Jun 10, 2014, 05:43 AM Jun 2014

Juan Cole: Dear Sen. McCain: No, the Taliban Prisoners didn’t Carry out 9/11; but you Supported Musl

http://www.juancole.com/2014/06/prisoners-supported-radicals.html

I am shocked and dismayed that the knowledgeable Sen. McCain should confuse the Taliban and al-Qaeda and should blame Afghans for 9/11. The Taliban regime did host al-Qaeda and they were allies within Afghanistan against the Northern Alliance. The Taliban did also allow al-Qaeda to train fighters at training camps, who were known to have an interest in carrying out attacks in Indian Kashmir, Uzbekistan, etc.

However, I know of no documentary evidence that the officials of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan helped plan, or even knew about, the 9/11 attacks on the US until they occurred. No Afghans were directly involved in those attacks or in the money trail for funding them. Taliban officials maintain that they were already disturbed by Bin Laden’s actions before 9/11 and made contacts with the US to find a way of surrendering him. That allegation may go too far, but that there were tensions between the Afghans and the Arabs in Afghanistan is well known, and that a country with a return address would not want to be involved in a direct attack on the US is perfectly plausible.

Not only is McCain making assertions of a serious sort for which there is no evidence, he is covering up his own past as a supporter of Muslim radicals in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the 1980s, radicals allied with al-Qaeda.

<snip>

So lest we take any holidays from history, I have some questions for John McCain. Did you or did you not know about Gen. Zia’s nuclear weapons program? Did you wink at it? If so doesn’t that make you a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction to a radical Muslim extremist regime?

And what about this AP article from 1985:

So how much support did John McCain give to the precursors of the Taliban in Afghanistan? To the budding al-Qaeda?

Despite what McCain says about military rule bringing stability, the opposite is the case. Never mind the dirty war in Afghanistan that led to the displacement abroad of 5 million Afghans, 3 million of them to Pakistan, and which helped destabilize Pakistan. Never mind the filling of Pakistan with machine guns and drug smuggling to support McCain’s al-Qaeda “freedom fighters,” which created a million heroin addicts in Pakistan. Karachi spiralled into virtual civil war in the mid to late 1980s under Zia. There were massive Shiite demonstrations against unfair Sunni fundamentalist policies of Zia. A Movement for the Restoration of Democracy began mobilizing political parties. Zia put Benazir Bhutto of the Pakistan People’s Party under arbitrary house arrest.

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Juan Cole: Dear Sen. McCain: No, the Taliban Prisoners didn’t Carry out 9/11; but you Supported Musl (Original Post) eridani Jun 2014 OP

In any event, the Taliban are shits and sure didn't oppose Bin Laden, before or after 911. merrily Jun 2014 #1

The point of the article was that McCain wholeheartedly supported Muslim militants eridani Jun 2014 #2

And what do you think the larger point of making that specific point about McCain right now is? merrily Jun 2014 #3

The US government actively supported the Taliban eridani Jun 2014 #4

Yes, but so what? We supported Marcos, the Shah of Iran, etc. and we warred against Japan, Italy and merrily Jun 2014 #5

It was obviously written to call out McCain for his nonsense on the Bergdahl affair n/t eridani Jun 2014 #6

I've already responded to that point in two prior posts. merrily Jun 2014 #7

Precisely but McCain was OK with releasing said men malaise Jun 2014 #9

Dear Juan Cole.. I am not shocked or surprised at John McCain.. but, thanks Cha Jun 2014 #8

McCain knew exactly what he was saying. Skidmore Jun 2014 #10

McCain blows with whatever wind Fox puts at his back.. mountain grammy Jun 2014 #11

merrily

(45,251 posts)

1. In any event, the Taliban are shits and sure didn't oppose Bin Laden, before or after 911.

Reply to eridani (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 05:48 AM

Jun 2014

They also don't oppose burning young girls or cutting off their noses or honor killings of females.

Why some feel we have to attempt to rehabilitate the Taliban to justify the Bergdahl negotiation is beyond me. Bringing Bergdahl home was the right thing to do, period. And the Taliban are heinous Muslim extremist terrorists, period (whether politics cause them to be officially designated as such or not). Both things are true.

eridani

(51,907 posts)

2. The point of the article was that McCain wholeheartedly supported Muslim militants

Reply to merrily (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 05:51 AM

Jun 2014

--in Pakistan and Afghanistan before 9/11. The CIA watched their noble proteges burn girls' schools and thought it was just fine.

merrily

(45,251 posts)

3. And what do you think the larger point of making that specific point about McCain right now is?

Reply to eridani (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 06:01 AM

Jun 2014

Never mind. I don't want to ascribe motives to the author. I just know that it seems to be to part of a larger effort to rehabilitate the Taliban, so we can say that we did not negotiate with terrorists and the Taliban are not so bad after all.

I could care less about inconsistencies in McCain's positions. Arizona either will or will not keep electing him Senator until he goes to Republican heaven or hell. And shifting positions seems to come with the territory of being a politician.

But, interfering with attempts to rehabilitate the Taliban, be they direct or direct, does matter to me. So does casting an inquiring eye and ear toward any large propaganda campaign. So, I posted about my perception of what the article is only a part of, given what has been going on in media since the Bergdahl exhange, rather than viewing this article in isolation, taking it purely at face value and simply knee jerking, "Bad McCain." Sue me.

eridani

(51,907 posts)

4. The US government actively supported the Taliban

Reply to merrily (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 06:07 AM

Jun 2014

It isn't the article that is apologizing for the Taliban, but 20 years of our own government. The people who are now whining about letting 5 officials of the Taliban government go are the very people who were backing them 20 years ago.

Remember that Oceania has never ever been at war with Eastasia--we have always been at war with Eurasia.

merrily

(45,251 posts)

5. Yes, but so what? We supported Marcos, the Shah of Iran, etc. and we warred against Japan, Italy and

Reply to eridani (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 06:13 AM

Jun 2014

Germany and now we are allies with those nations and not too friendly with Iran. And we helped Saddam before the Gulf War and before hanging him.. And we allied with Russia, whenever we were not bitter enemies of Russia and we "hit the restrart" button (albeit clumsily linguistically) before we were against Putin again. That is how nations, especially the USG it seems, behave. So what?

I respectfully submit you have no idea why the author(s) of the article wrote the article. In any event, whatever the motives, they wrote what they wanted to write, you posted what you wanted to post and I posted what I wanted to post.

eridani

(51,907 posts)

6. It was obviously written to call out McCain for his nonsense on the Bergdahl affair n/t

Reply to merrily (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 06:15 AM

Jun 2014

merrily

(45,251 posts)

7. I've already responded to that point in two prior posts.

Reply to eridani (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 06:16 AM

Jun 2014

ETA. Make that three prior posts. All my posts on this thread so far, including my first, which began "In any event, the Taliban are shits and sure didn't oppose Ben Laden after 911."