Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip ends tonight, and Aaron Sorkin will be leaving television production for a while. His current project is Charlie Wilson's War, a movie starring Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman, based on the late George Crile's excellent, funny nonfic book of the same name. The movie will trace "party animal" Congressman Charles "Good Time Charlie" Wilson's (D, TX) rise from a scandal (he was caught in "a hot tub tryst with two cocaine-sniffing showgirls in Las Vegas",) to his role in the 1980's covertly funding Afghanistan guerrillas so they could expand their war with the Soviet Union. Wilson's actions would eventually help collapse the Afghan PDPA government, a power vacuum which would be filled by the Taliban. Who would have thought ending the Cold War would be so easy?
posted by zarq on Jun 28, 2007 - 60 comments

Mike Hawash pleads guilty to conspiring to provide services to the Taliban and will testify against his friends that attempted to travel to Afghanistan after September 11, 2001. After the previous MeFi threads about Mike here and here, this ought to be quite a suprise for some. No update yet on the Free Mike Hawash site.
posted by schlyer on Aug 6, 2003 - 30 comments

Bin Laden Unmasked? Robert Fisk [ducks] reviews a '215 page treasure trove' written by an Al Jazeera journalist and published in Beirut. It contains a 'wealth of information' about the elusive billionaire and his followers. He communicates over the Internet - no surprise there - but the book gives some clues as to the site used: al-Nidaa, 'The Calling'. Can you find it? The words of Mullah Omar are apparently distributed on site called the 'Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan', wild goose chase? You decide.
posted by grahamwell on Oct 23, 2002 - 5 comments

An excellent piece of media analysis by Michael Wolff in New York Magazine looking at the current summer-movie-plot version of Al Qaeda being artfully constructed by the NY Times ...
Then, perhaps most disconcertingly, the overall narrative itself is patently a dumbed-down rehash. It's Cold War stuff. There is the ubiquitous and yet unknown and unknowable enemy. There's the international jihad, which, with only minor adjustments, replaces the international communist conspiracy. There's the sudden purported hegemony of the Muslim world -- a new Soviet-bloc-style ideological monolith. There is the otherworldly dedication of operatives bent on overthrowing the West. There are the cells. There is the myth of superhuman discipline. There is now, even, the developing Kremlinology of the next tier of men who replace Osama. And at the center of the story, of course, is the bomb. Whether in massive retaliatory form or as a dirty-bomb package, it serves the same effect.
(link cribbed from Altercation)
posted by mantid on Jul 1, 2002 - 8 comments

"Peaceful Tomorrows" launches tomorrow (Feb 14th). "Peaceful Tomorrows continues the work of family members who took part in the Walk for Healing and Peace from the Pentagon to the World Trade Center (winter 2001) as well as those who met with Afghan families affected by the subsequent bombing campaign (January 2002). Our goal is to facilitate dialogues on alternatives to war that utilize all of America's collective wisdom, skills and talents. "

Good luck Peaceful Tomorrows!
posted by crasspastor on Feb 13, 2002 - 1 comment

From a piece in the NYTimes today, Home Front Is Minefield for President: "The lesson we're learning," one administration official said today, "is that you can bomb the wrong place in Afghanistan and not take much heat for it. But don't mess up at the post office."

Leave it to the White House to come away with exactly the wrong interpretation. But the facts are there, too -- most Americans are more concerned about the (relatively slight) risk of getting Anthrax than the rather significant risk that, if we screw up in Afghanistan, we might lose the current coalition against terrorism, Bin Laden, and any hope for "homeland security" for a long time to come....
posted by mattpfeff on Oct 25, 2001 - 12 comments

US Special Forces now operating in southern Afghanistan Let's pray a repeat of Mogadishu doesn't happen and any innocents on the ground aren't harmed...
posted by mmascolino on Oct 18, 2001 - 4 comments

Bush Refused a Deal that would have turned over Bin Laden? Does he want a ribbon wrapped around him? Does he want a cherry on top of him? So the Taliban wants to drop him off at a country other than the U.S., is that a bad thing? I know he doesn't want to negotiate, but they're saying they'll hand him over .. aren't they?
posted by tsarfan on Oct 15, 2001 - 46 comments

Chomsky on MSNBC talks about recent events! That would be news all by itself. I know that a lot of people on the right disagree with him, but who can argue with what he says here? Also from left field an incisive Q&A about Afghanistan history and the current situation by Tariq Ali.
posted by talos on Oct 8, 2001 - 25 comments

Dack is back, but not in the blogging sense. Many here at MeFi thought he'd bring his blog back after it ceased in May. His front page is now a collection of links urging peaceful resolution of the Current Situation. Refresh a few times to see a variety of quotes.
posted by msacheson on Oct 1, 2001 - 9 comments

On the O'Reilly Factor, Phil Donahue leads a compelling argument for why bombing Afghanistan may NOT be the best course of action. It's obvious how the conservative O'Reilly feels about this and although the transcript hardly does the interview justice, Bill O'Reilly finally gets out-interrupted and is verbally handled by his own guest. (more)
posted by edwardko on Sep 26, 2001 - 9 comments

Americans threatened to attack Afghanistan two months ago. Was the terrorist attack a pre-emptive strike?
posted by liam on Sep 21, 2001 - 25 comments

'AMERICA and Britain are producing secret plans to launch a ten-year “war on terrorism”..' declares this (otherwise fairly generic) article without citing its sources. Be prepared for the possible oxymoron of a line that is 'the whole focus of the long-term American approach was being driven by Richard Cheney..' Oh yeah -- hate to promote Murdoch media but also noteworthy in this mornings edition of the London Times are the revelations that whilst 200 British 'are certain to have perished', a further 800 are missing following the disaster and a piece warning of a 'nightmare scenario' in which Pakistan could lose control of its nuclear weapons to none other than THE TALIBAN.
posted by Kino on Sep 20, 2001 - 8 comments

Taliban clerics meet to discuss bin Laden and then they kindly ask him to leave.
posted by bargle on Sep 20, 2001 - 22 comments

Was a US attack on the Taliban been in the works since July? According to this BBC article, the US had been planning a "military action", for the end of October, since mid July. The plan was to invade Afghanistan,oust the Taliban, and install a moderate government, possibly under former king Zahir Shah. Are the attacks last week simply going to legitimize this pre-existing plan? Or am I simply being too paranoid?
posted by bshort on Sep 18, 2001 - 32 comments

Troops Massing on Afghanistan/Pakistan Border: 20,000+ Taliban troops and an unreported number of Pakistani reinforcements have been deployed in anticipation of a Pakistan-based U.S. strike.
posted by ryanshepard on Sep 17, 2001 - 11 comments

Well, here we go. Macau authorities have arrested five Pakistanis of (officially) overstaying their visas. They also may be (again, speaking officially here) robbery suspects. But about halfway down the page, we find this little three-liner: ''According to preliminary investigations, the documents seized [in the arrest] appear to contain instructions to attack American targets in the SAR and Macau in the case of an American attack on Afghanistan,'' the [government] source said.
posted by Bixby23 on Sep 17, 2001 - 7 comments

Afghan Opposition Chief Massood Dies "Since the Sept. 9 suicide attack . . . there have been conflicting reports about Massood's condition"
posted by sixdifferentways on Sep 16, 2001 - 1 comment

"The last effort of a uniquely extreme group sheltered by a uniquely obtuse and backward government" Not a new era of international terrorism but the last, spectacular gasp of an old one, says The Guardian.
posted by Summer on Sep 14, 2001 - 6 comments

NY Times: Taliban Plead for Mercy to the Miserable in a Land of Nothing Perhaps they should have thought of this when they sheltered so many "un-Islamic" murderers such as bin Laden. The perpetrators, co-conspirators, and accomplices of this massacre will receive no quarter from the U.S. whether they are Afghani, Iraqi, Saudi, or even American.
posted by lenticular on Sep 13, 2001 - 54 comments

Pakistan faces strategic decision Pakistan has assumed a lot of importance once again, ironicaly, when the US of A needs its help. The geographic nature of the country along with love hate relationship with Bin Laden, and Taleban, also past very close ties between Pakistan Intelligence ISI and CIA has suddenly brought Pakistan to the verge of another very important decision. How much should Pakistan help USA ? Is the US of A trustable after what happened when they left it alienated when their mission of breaking up of the Soviet Union was achieved ? What is to make sure that USA will not use it and dispose of, just like it has done before ? Should Pakistan allow its air and land resources to be used for a possible attack on Afghanistan ? These are decisons - for a keen observer of Pak-US ties - that can change how historians will write about a Fundamentalist America's reply to an attack on its fundamentals.
posted by adnanbwp on Sep 12, 2001 - 5 comments

Explosions in Kabul. There are missles coming in Afghanastan. (Saving front page bandwidth, more inside)
posted by geoff. on Sep 11, 2001 - 23 comments