Talks With Taliban Hopeful

[Genivaria]

Nobody is saying the Afghan government is good. But it is definitely the lesser evil.
And at least the people can vote to change it.

That is exactly what I am talking about, this attitude that everything is okay if its democratic even admittedly something evil. Democracy is not from Afghanistan, Democracy is a Greek-European concept that is trying to be imposed globally, these societies have been following and refining their customs for generations before Democracy was even a thing, the system trying to be imposed is one that is "They need to vote on whether or not to do this regardless if it contradicts the will of the tribes, their religion and so on. Because this is the only way to be happy and we know best." It's arrogant.

What's really arrogant is this silly apologetic that certain peoples are not mature enough for democracy and needed to be ordered around like chattel by some tyrant.
If you claim to respect a people's choice then you have to respect their right to democracy as it is THE MOST representative OF THEIR CHOICES.

[Salus Maior]

That is exactly what I am talking about, this attitude that everything is okay if its democratic even admittedly something evil. Democracy is not from Afghanistan, Democracy is a Greek-European concept that is trying to be imposed globally, these societies have been following and refining their customs for generations before Democracy was even a thing, the system trying to be imposed is one that is "They need to vote on whether or not to do this regardless if it contradicts the will of the tribes, their religion and so on. Because this is the only way to be happy and we know best." It's arrogant.

What's really arrogant is this silly apologetic that certain peoples are not mature enough for democracy and needed to be ordered around like chattel by some tyrant.
If you claim to respect a people's choice then you have to respect their right to democracy as it is THE MOST representative OF THEIR CHOICES.

What's arrogant here is claiming that western democracy is the end result of a society "maturing". And that if one is not western-democratic they're automatically ruled by Tyrants because God forbid these people come up with a system that works for them that solves their own problems and doesn't necessarily toe the Western line.

[Farnhamia]

We don't negotiate with trash, we exterminate them.

*** Warned for trolling. ***

[Farnhamia]

This sounds like an excellent opportunity. Get a bunch of Taliban officers all in one place, and then kill em all. Hell, I vote we let the locals stone em to death the second they step out of the car.

*** Warned for trolling ***

[Novus America]

What's really arrogant is this silly apologetic that certain peoples are not mature enough for democracy and needed to be ordered around like chattel by some tyrant.
If you claim to respect a people's choice then you have to respect their right to democracy as it is THE MOST representative OF THEIR CHOICES.

What's arrogant here is claiming that western democracy is the end result of a society "maturing". And that if one is not western-democratic they're automatically ruled by Tyrants because God forbid these people come up with a system that works for them that solves their own problems and doesn't necessarily toe the Western line.

Well it need not be a Western Style democracy.
But some psychopaths mass murdering their way to the top is not them creating a system that works for them, it is a system being forced on them by a group of mass murders.

If they want some form of tribal democracy combined with a constitutional monarch with actual powers like Jordan, cool.
Jordan is no Western Democracy and is not the system I would choose for America but it is tolerable and does not cause problems for the rest of world.

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

What's arrogant here is claiming that western democracy is the end result of a society "maturing". And that if one is not western-democratic they're automatically ruled by Tyrants because God forbid these people come up with a system that works for them that solves their own problems and doesn't necessarily toe the Western line.

Well it need not be a Western Style democracy.
But some psychopaths mass murdering their way to the top is not them creating a system that works for them, it is a system being forced on them by a group of mass murders.

If they want some form of tribal democracy combined with a constitutional monarch with actual powers like Jordan, cool.
Jordan is no Western Democracy and is not the system I would choose for America but it is tolerable and does not cause problems for the rest of world.

Democracy hasn't worked for Iraq, and it hasn't worked for Afghanistan, as much as I hate to admit it.

If we have to install an autocratic dictator to stabilize the state (not for political gain, not like in Argentina or the Reza Pahlavi coup in Iran), then so be it.

[Salus Maior]

Well it need not be a Western Style democracy.
But some psychopaths mass murdering their way to the top is not them creating a system that works for them, it is a system being forced on them by a group of mass murders.

If they want some form of tribal democracy combined with a constitutional monarch with actual powers like Jordan, cool.
Jordan is no Western Democracy and is not the system I would choose for America but it is tolerable and does not cause problems for the rest of world.

Democracy hasn't worked for Iraq, and it hasn't worked for Afghanistan, as much as I hate to admit it.

If we have to install an autocratic dictator to stabilize the state (not for political gain, not like in Argentina or the Reza Pahlavi coup in Iran), then so be it.

America has also very intentionally rigged Iraq's democracy (because of course they did, not like we would go to the trouble of forcefully installing one just so they can potentially vote for someone we don't want, right?), so it never really had a chance to begin with.

[Novus America]

Well it need not be a Western Style democracy.
But some psychopaths mass murdering their way to the top is not them creating a system that works for them, it is a system being forced on them by a group of mass murders.

If they want some form of tribal democracy combined with a constitutional monarch with actual powers like Jordan, cool.
Jordan is no Western Democracy and is not the system I would choose for America but it is tolerable and does not cause problems for the rest of world.

Democracy hasn't worked for Iraq, and it hasn't worked for Afghanistan, as much as I hate to admit it.

If we have to install an autocratic dictator to stabilize the state (not for political gain, not like in Argentina or the Reza Pahlavi coup in Iran), then so be it.

I would accept that if it can get us out without the Taliban returning.

But you still need some form of check on the system, and a smart pragmatic person leading it, not some religious zealot or blood thirsting psychopaths.

As I said, like in Jordan their is a middle ground for pre Enlightenment societies that limits autocracy with limited democracy.

[Novus America]

Democracy hasn't worked for Iraq, and it hasn't worked for Afghanistan, as much as I hate to admit it.

If we have to install an autocratic dictator to stabilize the state (not for political gain, not like in Argentina or the Reza Pahlavi coup in Iran), then so be it.

America has also very intentionally rigged Iraq's democracy (because of course they did, not like we would go to the trouble of forcefully installing one just so they can potentially vote for someone we don't want, right?), so it never really had a chance to begin with.

Actually it was the exact opposite. We did not rig it and they elected people we did not want.

[Salus Maior]

Democracy hasn't worked for Iraq, and it hasn't worked for Afghanistan, as much as I hate to admit it.

If we have to install an autocratic dictator to stabilize the state (not for political gain, not like in Argentina or the Reza Pahlavi coup in Iran), then so be it.

I would accept that if it can get us out without the Taliban returning.

But you still need some form of check on the system, and a smart pragmatic person leading it, not some religious zealot or blood thirsting psychopaths.

As I said, like in Jordan their is a middle ground for pre Enlightenment societies that limits autocracy with limited democracy.

Monarchy isn't "pre-Enlightenment". Monarchy is ongoing, and was ongoing in most of Europe until relatively recently.

[Novus America]

I would accept that if it can get us out without the Taliban returning.

But you still need some form of check on the system, and a smart pragmatic person leading it, not some religious zealot or blood thirsting psychopaths.

As I said, like in Jordan their is a middle ground for pre Enlightenment societies that limits autocracy with limited democracy.

Monarchy isn't "pre-Enlightenment". Monarchy is ongoing, and was ongoing in most of Europe until relatively recently.

I know, but the modern republic is an Enlightenment concept.
Of course Enlightened monarchy is very possible.
Although all European monarchies are democratic popular monarchies.
The monarch is what the majority of people want in those places, and they could vote it out if they wished. Popular nationalist monarchy is an Enlightenment concept.

Monarchy existed pre-Enlightenment obviously, although in a different form.

But Jordan’s hybrid monarchy/limited democracy/tribal system seems to work in a pre Enlightenment society.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Monarchy isn't "pre-Enlightenment". Monarchy is ongoing, and was ongoing in most of Europe until relatively recently.

I know, but the modern republic is an Enlightenment concept.
Of course Enlightened monarchy is very possible.
Although all European monarchies are democratic popular monarchies.
The monarch is what the majority of people want in those places, and they could vote it out if they wished. Popular nationalist monarchy is an Enlightenment concept.

Monarchy existed pre-Enlightenment obviously, although in a different form.

But Jordan’s hybrid monarchy/limited democracy/tribal system seems to work in a pre Enlightenment society.

So you're basically waging a holy war for the Enlightenment.

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

*snip snap*

So you're basically waging a holy war for the Enlightenment.

That isn't what he's saying at all. Are you reading what he's saying?

[Genivaria]

We don't negotiate with trash, we exterminate them.

*** Warned for trolling. ***

I'm sorry what? Who and how am I trolling Farn?

[Novus America]

I know, but the modern republic is an Enlightenment concept.
Of course Enlightened monarchy is very possible.
Although all European monarchies are democratic popular monarchies.
The monarch is what the majority of people want in those places, and they could vote it out if they wished. Popular nationalist monarchy is an Enlightenment concept.

Monarchy existed pre-Enlightenment obviously, although in a different form.

But Jordan’s hybrid monarchy/limited democracy/tribal system seems to work in a pre Enlightenment society.

So you're basically waging a holy war for the Enlightenment.

What? Where did you get that from?

I said I would prefer Afghanistan adopt Enlightenment thought, but also that I have no intention of us being the one to have them do that, and that should NOT be our objective.

My objective is just a semi stable and not completely reprehensible government and then we GTFO and never go near it again hopefully. And I stated I was NOT dogmatic about what form it takes and that it would not have to be a Western style democracy.

I clearly said a system like Jordan has (which while it has democratic aspects is NOT a Western democracy) is fine.

So what I was saying was quite the opposite really.

[Genivaria]

What's really arrogant is this silly apologetic that certain peoples are not mature enough for democracy and needed to be ordered around like chattel by some tyrant.
If you claim to respect a people's choice then you have to respect their right to democracy as it is THE MOST representative OF THEIR CHOICES.

What's arrogant here is claiming that western democracy is the end result of a society "maturing". And that if one is not western-democratic they're automatically ruled by Tyrants because God forbid these people come up with a system that works for them that solves their own problems and doesn't necessarily toe the Western line.

because God forbid these people come up with a system that works for them

Saying the people came up with it implies that it's a government of the people and not one governed by a single-party state.

[Washington Resistance Army]

*** Warned for trolling. ***

I'm sorry what? Who and how am I trolling Farn?

You hurt the Talibans fee fees lol

[Yanitza]

You refuse to answer the question. What Mujahideen groups are you referring to? The fact you call “the” Mujahideen a single group shows why you are fundamentally wrong in what it was.
Mujahideen fought each other as much as the Soviets.

It was a lose movement of many different groups, with many different motives and backers.
The US did not fund “the Mujahideen” as it never existed as a single entity or group.

The US did fund some within the movement, but not it a as whole (because it never existed as such), again the US mostly backed the Tajik groups. The Taliban hated the Tajiks. The Tajiks initially were dominant for several years after the Soviets left, it was only after they collapsed (years after the Soviets left and the US ceased involvement) the Taliban (which had not existed during the Soviet War) was able to largely supplant them.

Your lack of understanding of the nature and organization (or lack thereof) if the Mujahideen limits your ability to understand it.

Turkey in WWI is the best example. Turkey backed the German Empire. Many Nazis has served in the German military (but just like this the German Army was not a Nazi organization, Nazis did not yet exist, not all German veterans became Nazis and not all Nazis were war veterans).

The US role with the Taliban was therefore indirect and limited.

Sure one can argue has the US done things differently (such as protecting the Tajik regime against the Taliban) maybe things would be different, but hindsight is 20/20.

The simple fact is the US never worked with the Taliban.
Just as Turkey in WWI never fought with the Nazis, because the Nazis did not yet exist.

just wanted to pick up on this one point

1. This is not really true, the U.S, specifically the CIA which was the most involved in the Afghan conflict, did not have an independant policy from the Pakistani ISI and thus tended to play second fiddle to them. This meant that the CIA supplied guns, money and other gear and the ISI got to choose which Mujihideen got what, with CIA having very little involvement on the ground. Overwhelmingly, Pakistan ensured the majority of supplies went more radical Pashtuns such as Hekmatyar, Khalis, Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, with a few going to other moderates of the Peshawar 7. The only Tajik to receive any substantial support was Rabbani, affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Tajiks like Masood basically got nothing and had to gain most o thier equipment from battlefield wins. The U.S mostly ended up supplyin Pahstun Mujihideen favoured by the Pakistanis. The Tajiks never had that strong a control after the fall of Najibullah as Kabul was always under contest under Rabbani's rule.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Pretty sure theres been talks like this b4, given the type of place we r talkin bout, i expect major sectarian violence to continue

There is not major sectarian violence.

[Novus America]

What's arrogant here is claiming that western democracy is the end result of a society "maturing". And that if one is not western-democratic they're automatically ruled by Tyrants because God forbid these people come up with a system that works for them that solves their own problems and doesn't necessarily toe the Western line.

because God forbid these people come up with a system that works for them

Saying the people came up with it implies that it's a government of the people and not one governed by a single-party state.

Indeed. A system that works for them is fine. But a system brutally imposed psychotic zealots is a system imposed on them, not one the came up with.

[Ayytaly]

Cultural relativity -> Ethnocentrism -> Nordicism -> Genocide

Had Rome successfully controlled/reduced the Germanic population, we wouldn't have Anglos stepping on people's throats worldwide.

The Romans would just do it instead.

The Romans were pillagers at worst, but certainly not genocidal ruffian relics from the Stone Age who killed off many ethnic groups within Europe. It's really baffling how many people - particularly Eurosceptics - automatically consider Middle Easterns and Muslims "backwards" and "regressive" when history shows the opposite. The Islamic world was at one point in time very sophisticated, and many of its inhabitants (including the Ottoman) saw [the oft-praised] Europe as barbaric, and rightfully so. Over half of European kingdoms were becoming more and more Germanicized, and - whether by glut or coincidence - warred on a ridiculously constant basis that it left Southern Europe ripe for invasion, such as the Umayyad. In turn, Germanic-influenced kingdoms such as Spain, France, and England would voyage outside, eventually "discovering" America, and appropriated its lands and material at the expense of natives. Meanwhile, Medieval-era Islam gave us the earliest blueprints for robots (I'm not kidding.)

You make a good point on democracy being too Western/Eurocentric for the middle east and south Asia, and how detrimental it is as it provides apostates the power to vote against the majority's interests in Muslim-dominated nations. It's as if the Anglo powers (US; UK) didn't like how certain nations were flawlessly operated under autocratic regimes that knew what they were doing, so they invaded and brainwashed the masses into thinking dictatorship = oppression, despite the rising GDP, state benefits, and terrorism being under control or inexistent.

To go back to the topic at hand, Osama cited the West's direct involvement of the fall of Islamic monarchy (i.e. Ottoman Empire) as his main reason for orchestrating 9/11.

[Genivaria]

I'm sorry what? Who and how am I trolling Farn?

You hurt the Talibans fee fees lol

What's next? I can't advocate shooting SS officers?

[Genivaria]

The Romans would just do it instead.

The Romans were pillagers at worst, but certainly not genocidal ruffian relics from the Stone Age who killed off many ethnic groups within Europe. It's really baffling how many people - particularly Eurosceptics - automatically consider Middle Easterns and Muslims "backwards" and "regressive" when history shows the opposite. The Islamic world was at one point in time very sophisticated, and many of its inhabitants (including the Ottoman) saw [the oft-praised] Europe as barbaric, and rightfully so. Over half of European kingdoms were becoming more and more Germanicized, and - whether by glut or coincidence - warred on a ridiculously constant basis that it left Southern Europe ripe for invasion, such as the Umayyad. In turn, Germanic-influenced kingdoms such as Spain, France, and England would voyage outside, eventually "discovering" America, and appropriated its lands and material at the expense of natives. Meanwhile, Medieval-era Islam gave us the earliest blueprints for robots (I'm not kidding.)

You make a good point on democracy being too Western/Eurocentric for the middle east and south Asia, and how detrimental it is as it provides apostates the power to vote against the majority's interests in Muslim-dominated nations. It's as if the Anglo powers (US; UK) didn't like how certain nations were flawlessly operated under autocratic regimes that knew what they were doing, so they invaded and brainwashed the masses into thinking dictatorship = oppression, despite the rising GDP, state benefits, and terrorism being under control or inexistent.

To go back to the topic at hand, Osama cited the West's direct involvement of the fall of Islamic monarchy (i.e. Ottoman Empire) as his main reason for orchestrating 9/11.

I'm sorry what reality did this happen in?

[Ayytaly]

The Romans were pillagers at worst, but certainly not genocidal ruffian relics from the Stone Age who killed off many ethnic groups within Europe. It's really baffling how many people - particularly Eurosceptics - automatically consider Middle Easterns and Muslims "backwards" and "regressive" when history shows the opposite. The Islamic world was at one point in time very sophisticated, and many of its inhabitants (including the Ottoman) saw [the oft-praised] Europe as barbaric, and rightfully so. Over half of European kingdoms were becoming more and more Germanicized, and - whether by glut or coincidence - warred on a ridiculously constant basis that it left Southern Europe ripe for invasion, such as the Umayyad. In turn, Germanic-influenced kingdoms such as Spain, France, and England would voyage outside, eventually "discovering" America, and appropriated its lands and material at the expense of natives. Meanwhile, Medieval-era Islam gave us the earliest blueprints for robots (I'm not kidding.)

You make a good point on democracy being too Western/Eurocentric for the middle east and south Asia, and how detrimental it is as it provides apostates the power to vote against the majority's interests in Muslim-dominated nations. It's as if the Anglo powers (US; UK) didn't like how certain nations were flawlessly operated under autocratic regimes that knew what they were doing, so they invaded and brainwashed the masses into thinking dictatorship = oppression, despite the rising GDP, state benefits, and terrorism being under control or inexistent.

To go back to the topic at hand, Osama cited the West's direct involvement of the fall of Islamic monarchy (i.e. Ottoman Empire) as his main reason for orchestrating 9/11.

I'm sorry what reality did this happen in?

I see you were properly brainwashed by Newscorp and neocon propaganda.

[Heloin]

I'm sorry what reality did this happen in?

I see you were properly brainwashed by Newscorp and neocon propaganda.

Friendly reminder from the village council. Stone throwing is dangerous when living in glass houses.