Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

I realize I am splitting a hair with a electron beam but the US supplied training and money and equipment to Mujahadeen. Osama and the Taliban back then were considered radicals and shunned even by the other Mujahadeen.

The group that the US supported and trained became known as the Northern Alliance which is why the US was able to gain Allies and support in removing the Taliban from power. They remade contact with old Allies and used their support to overthrow the Taliban when the US invaded A-Stan.

The Taliban and Osama were a fringe group trained and funded by the Pakistani ISI using money and equipment supplied to Pakistan for teh Mujahadeen.

IMHO this argument is comparable to the US selling tens of thousands of tons of scrap metal to Japan up to right before Pearl Harbor and then saying we helped build Japan's war machine because it was built with US steel.

I also rememebr lots of arguments and heated debates about supplying Stinger SAM's to the Mujahadeen out of fear they would be turned on Western aircraft after the war.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Back then they were one in the same, the taliban weren't even a thought in Osama's mind at the time when he and many of the other Mujahadeen were being trained.

Not exactly, the Northern Alliance was yet another political force the only one that was against the Taliban, infact many of the forces that made up the northern alliance were former pro-soviet members, including Rashid Dostum, which is why we(russia) chose to support them.

fringe is a very strong word, the reason why they took over so easily is because they were supported by the same people who were against the communist party of afghanistan.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

The Taliban rose to power because they offered the people security in the anarchy which we helped create. If we didn't topple a legitimate albeit (gasp) socialist government in Afghanistan, the Taliban never would have gained power and... just maybe... 9/11 never would have happened.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

The point of a trial is to prove that you know. You have to have the trial - even when you're certain, even when you have overwhelming evidence - so that people can see the evidence. Otherwise, however much evidence you have, it's some policeman's word that it was done; the evidence never gets shown off. Some guy's word that you should be put to death.

A trial is part of the checks and balances system. It has to be there, even for rapists and murderers and scum like that. You can't just pull out your gun and shoot them, or you could do it to anyone and go 'Well, fuck it, I knew they were guilty.'

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

And if Russia had not invaded A-Stan we would have never had a reason to support the Mujaheddin.

The finger pointing and blame game can go on and on.

It could just as easily have happened in Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, etc.

Sorry to have rained on your "America is responsible for all the world's problems parade".

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Fundamentally, Rusia invaded Afghanistan. That was inevitable; An expansionistic nation moving into an area of strategic importance. As a result, we supported a bunch of nutjobs who should never have been put in a position of power. That's a pretty big fuck-up to just place on happenstance.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

We didn't invade, the government was already communist, we came in to assist the government, that was already fighting the Mujahadeen long before we got there.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Heh what?

The Russians invaded BECAUSE we supported the Mujahedeen, not the other way around.

Just got a "cultural awareness" class on the subject recently. The Mujaheddin started out weak, but with American support got powerful enough to actually defeat government soldiers in several major battles, endangering the government and forcing them to ask the Soviets for help.


...not without billions of American $$$$$

Oh and speaking of Yemen... isn't the United States waging war there even as we speak?

Some people will go to the ends of the earth to justify the things the CIA has done to the world.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

It still remains laughable that people post negative rep without leaving their name. What you so scared about? Revenge Repping? Afraid that's not allowed, so don't go crying about it. :rolleyes:

Anyhow...

With respect, if someone had set another person up with video footage, there's a chance that they'd be able to control the trial too.

Regardless;My initial point raised, was that people found guilty (before or after a trial) shouldn't have any rights to hold on to, especially if their crime is a serious one. Maybe I've jumped the gun a bit where trials are concerned, on that note I'd go back and focus on my first post. Why should murderers and rapists (who are going guilty in court) proceed to have any rights?

@ Mihali and Nem, ignore what I've said in regards to trials. Obviously wasn't thinking straight; carried away with the moment. Specifically though, people who are found guilty of serious offences still have their 'human rights' in many cases, when I don't think they deserve to have them.

It is those who I believe should be shot.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

The socialist government took power in a military coup. Then Nur Muhammad Taraki was assassinated in another military coup and replaced with Hafizullha Amin who was assassinated by KGB Alpha Group. Shortly after, the Soviets invaded less than two years into the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan's existence. However, I guess it depends on your definition of legitimate. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs though.