Other countries approving other countries' wars that sounds good.
Advertisement
by Senkaku » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:10 pm
by Fartsniffage » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:12 pm
Khataiy wrote:Senkaku wrote:Then for all intents and purposes they don't care.
Hence why they prefer to bomb innocent people in government-controlled cities like Kabul or Ghazni.
Their spokesman has said the Taliban wants girls only schools, I don't doubt that and that they oppose schools funded by and supported by the Afghan government and Occupational forces. They don't deny it they are open about their beliefs on this, I mean they obviously don't think they're doing something wrong they believe they are correcting perceived wrongs against their country and community. The overall leadership is corrupt, this is a fact but at the same time they still reconcile what they are doing internally as protecting their country. People here are also ignoring the Afghan tribes and their interests here, if the tribes are happy its the same in Arab countries everyone will be happy, but the Taliban has tight control over the Pashtuns whereas the government is dominated by Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, the Taliban has Uzbeks, Hazaras and Tajiks in their ranks as well, but they were born out the Pashtun community, their strongholds are in Pashtun lands and the Pashtuns don't want to be governed or dominated by other races.
It'd be like if you went into a black community in the south and appointed white people from the north to control the community and make policies there and vice versa it obviously is an issue. Neither the Taliban or Afghan government want a Balkanized state either but the demographics aren't helping, the Taliban has better PR with the Pashtun community which is huge in Afghanistan than the overall government.
by Vetalia » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:15 pm
Senkaku wrote:No? What do you think Iraq Round One and Korea were?
by Senkaku » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:16 pm
and that they oppose schools funded by and supported by the Afghan government and Occupational forces.
They don't deny it they are open about their beliefs on this,
I mean they obviously don't think they're doing something wrong they believe they are correcting perceived wrongs against their country and community. The overall leadership is corrupt, this is a fact but at the same time they still reconcile what they are doing internally as protecting their country.
People here are also ignoring the Afghan tribes and their interests here, if the tribes are happy its the same in Arab countries everyone will be happy, but the Taliban has tight control over the Pashtuns whereas the government is dominated by Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, the Taliban has Uzbeks, Hazaras and Tajiks in their ranks as well, but they were born out the Pashtun community, their strongholds are in Pashtun lands and the Pashtuns don't want to be governed or dominated by other races.
It'd be like if you went into a black community in the south and appointed white people from the north to control the community and make policies there and vice versa it obviously is an issue. Neither the Taliban or Afghan government want a Balkanized state either but the demographics aren't helping, the Taliban has better PR with the Pashtun community which is huge in Afghanistan than the overall government.
by Senkaku » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:18 pm
by Khataiy » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:18 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:Khataiy wrote:Their spokesman has said the Taliban wants girls only schools, I don't doubt that and that they oppose schools funded by and supported by the Afghan government and Occupational forces. They don't deny it they are open about their beliefs on this, I mean they obviously don't think they're doing something wrong they believe they are correcting perceived wrongs against their country and community. The overall leadership is corrupt, this is a fact but at the same time they still reconcile what they are doing internally as protecting their country. People here are also ignoring the Afghan tribes and their interests here, if the tribes are happy its the same in Arab countries everyone will be happy, but the Taliban has tight control over the Pashtuns whereas the government is dominated by Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, the Taliban has Uzbeks, Hazaras and Tajiks in their ranks as well, but they were born out the Pashtun community, their strongholds are in Pashtun lands and the Pashtuns don't want to be governed or dominated by other races.
It'd be like if you went into a black community in the south and appointed white people from the north to control the community and make policies there and vice versa it obviously is an issue. Neither the Taliban or Afghan government want a Balkanized state either but the demographics aren't helping, the Taliban has better PR with the Pashtun community which is huge in Afghanistan than the overall government.
Then why did they put 16 IEDs in girls schools?
by Conserative Morality » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:23 pm
by Washington Resistance Army » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:25 pm
by Khataiy » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:25 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:The Taliban are scum. Remember the Lion of Panjshir! Remember his sacrifice! And remember their duplicity!
by The New California Republic » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:28 pm
Washington Resistance Army wrote:We should have gone total war and destroyed the Taliban entirely.
The New California Republic wrote:I remember watching the bombing of the Taliban mountain strongholds by the B-52 bombers in 2001. They should have kept that shit going.
by Conserative Morality » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:30 pm
Khataiy wrote:
He was an ally of the Taliban early on he didn't want to fight them and multiple times tried to make peace with them, Abdullah Azzam even called him the Lion of Pnajshir. He was in their same boat just like a majority of the Northern Alliance.With United Nations support, most Afghan political parties decided to appoint a legitimate national government to succeed communist rule, through an elite settlement.[51][52] While the external Afghan party leaders were residing in Peshawar, the military situation around Kabul involving the internal commanders was tense. A 1991 UN peace process brought about some negotiations, but the attempted elite settlement did not develop.[52] In April 1992, resistance leaders in Peshawar tried to negotiate a settlement. Massoud supported the Peshawar process of establishing a broad coalition government inclusive of all resistance parties, but Hekmatyar sought to become the sole ruler of Afghanistan, stating, "In our country coalition government is impossible because, this way or another, it is going to be weak and incapable of stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan."[53]
Massoud wrote:
All the parties had participated in the war, in jihad in Afghanistan, so they had to have their share in the government, and in the formation of the government. Afghanistan is made up of different nationalities. We were worried about a national conflict between different tribes and different nationalities. In order to give everybody their own rights and also to avoid bloodshed in Kabul, we left the word to the parties so they should decide about the country as a whole. We talked about it for a temporary stage and then after that the ground should be prepared for a general election.[54]
A recorded radio communication between the two leaders showed the divide as Massoud asked Hekmatyar:
The Kabul regime is ready to surrender, so instead of the fighting we should gather. ... The leaders are meeting in Peshawar. ... The troops should not enter Kabul, they should enter later on as part of the government.
Hekmatyar's response:
We will march into Kabul with our naked sword. No one can stop us. ... Why should we meet the leaders?" Massoud answered: "It seems to me that you don't want to join the leaders in Peshawar nor stop your threat, and you are planning to enter Kabul ... in that case I must defend the people.
[55]
At that point Osama bin Laden, trying to mediate, urged Hekmatyar to "go back with your brothers" and to accept a compromise. Bin Laden reportedly "hated Ahmad Shah Massoud".[56] Bin Laden was involved in ideological and personal disputes with Massoud[57] and had sided with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar against Massoud in the inner-Afghan conflict since the late 1980s.[58] But Hekmatyar refused to accept a compromise, confident that he would be able to gain sole power in Afghanistan.[59]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Sha ... ment_(1992)
by Khataiy » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:31 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Khataiy wrote:
He was an ally of the Taliban early on he didn't want to fight them and multiple times tried to make peace with them, Abdullah Azzam even called him the Lion of Pnajshir. He was in their same boat just like a majority of the Northern Alliance.
>> citing a mujahideen who died in '89 as proof that Massoud worked with the Taliban
>> ignoring that the Pakistan-born Taliban movement didn't arise until '94
>> ignoring the fact that the Northern Alliance only formed out of desperation to fight a common foe - the Taliban
Taliban apologists will never reclaim history; the truth is stronger than any of your lies.
Khataiy wrote:Al Mumtahanah wrote:In fact the Taliban ended up fighting people the CIA had funded.
The CIA funded a wide array of people some went on to form the Taliban others joined the Northern Alliance, but neither faction existed during the Soviet occupation there was a lot of infighting, and different shifting alliances the US sent arms to Pakistan along with advisors and anyone who showed up willing to fight was armed and trained no questions asked by the CIA and ISI. The CIA and ISI collaborated with Chinese and Iranian intelligence as well during this period there were no background checks or anything like that, they didn't really care. But yes undoubtedly groups the CIA and Iran funded went on to form the NA, while ISI kept funding elements that became the Taliban and China just gave up all together.
by Senkaku » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:33 pm
Washington Resistance Army wrote:We should have gone total war and destroyed the Taliban entirely.
by Washington Resistance Army » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:34 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:We should have gone total war and destroyed the Taliban entirely.
Again we kinda did:The New California Republic wrote:I remember watching the bombing of the Taliban mountain strongholds by the B-52 bombers in 2001. They should have kept that shit going.
But that strategy was only very brief. It was more to show the folks at home in a very spectacular manner that something was being done about 9/11.
by Washington Resistance Army » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:35 pm
Senkaku wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:We should have gone total war and destroyed the Taliban entirely.
come on lol I don't like them but Afghanistan is really not a vital enough US interest or a big enough human rights issue to be worth total war-- if we're going to start crusading for liberty full-time, we gotta start by taking down our biggest enemies before they get wise to us and arm up (so put the Chinese, Russians, Norks, Iranians, Saudis, Pakistanis, Turks, Egyptians, and Venezuelans on their back first, and then move on to smaller countries like Afghanistan or the various African dictatorships or whatever)
by Conserative Morality » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:35 pm
Khataiy wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:>> citing a mujahideen who died in '89 as proof that Massoud worked with the Taliban
>> ignoring that the Pakistan-born Taliban movement didn't arise until '94
>> ignoring the fact that the Northern Alliance only formed out of desperation to fight a common foe - the Taliban
Taliban apologists will never reclaim history; the truth is stronger than any of your lies.Khataiy wrote:The CIA funded a wide array of people some went on to form the Taliban others joined the Northern Alliance, but neither faction existed during the Soviet occupation there was a lot of infighting, and different shifting alliances the US sent arms to Pakistan along with advisors and anyone who showed up willing to fight was armed and trained no questions asked by the CIA and ISI. The CIA and ISI collaborated with Chinese and Iranian intelligence as well during this period there were no background checks or anything like that, they didn't really care. But yes undoubtedly groups the CIA and Iran funded went on to form the NA, while ISI kept funding elements that became the Taliban and China just gave up all together.
Nice try bro
by Conserative Morality » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:36 pm
Washington Resistance Army wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Again we kinda did:
But that strategy was only very brief. It was more to show the folks at home in a very spectacular manner that something was being done about 9/11.
Your war isn't total enough if your enemy still exists more than a decade later.
by Vetalia » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:36 pm
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Your war isn't total enough if your enemy still exists more than a decade later.
by Khataiy » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:36 pm
by Senkaku » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:37 pm
Washington Resistance Army wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Again we kinda did:
But that strategy was only very brief. It was more to show the folks at home in a very spectacular manner that something was being done about 9/11.
Your war isn't total enough if your enemy still exists more than a decade later.
by Senkaku » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:38 pm
Vetalia wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:Your war isn't total enough if your enemy still exists more than a decade later.
Going on almost 20 years now...the next generation of Taliban supporters are adults now. Maybe the question to ask is why so many Afghanis are such strong supporters of the Taliban?
by The New California Republic » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:42 pm
Washington Resistance Army wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Again we kinda did:
But that strategy was only very brief. It was more to show the folks at home in a very spectacular manner that something was being done about 9/11.
Your war isn't total enough if your enemy still exists more than a decade later.
by Conserative Morality » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:42 pm
Senkaku wrote:Not everything is worth mobilizing for total war (or half-assing it for a decade). Whether we're playing a hard-nosed Machiavellian game for America's interests or trying to defend liberty and human rights everywhere or whatever, Afghanistan clearly is not going well and was not worth this much trouble
The Jackal wrote: You think somebody in the Pentagon's gonna read it and come after me? Shit no. I'm a necessary evil. They want me here - they're glad I'm here. Because if I wasn't, they might have to come try to stem the tide. It will be thankless and worthless, and once the bodies started coming home in bags, they're screwed. A dead 23-year-old from Iowa gets more air time than the death of fifty-thousand people he gave his life to protect.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Atrito, Cyptopir, Foxyshire, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Inferior, Kannap, Niolia, Ors Might, Shidei, Tarsonis
Advertisement