Afghan Conflict: Russian Political Leader Meets With Massoud

[Lady Victory]

IBA, one of the top universities in Pakistan, invites Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen as a keynote speaker to give a lecture on geopolitics

bruh

[Fahran]

IBA, one of the top universities in Pakistan, invites Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen as a keynote speaker to give a lecture on geopolitics

bruh

It's Pakistan. What were y'all expecting?

[Fahran]

Kemalism is Fascism.

It's really not, despite taking abundant influence from both Mussolini and Lenin. Modern Kemalism is quite removed from the ideology of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk himself. Ataturk was a bit removed from the Three Pashas anyway, so I have no idea why we're holding all Kemalists responsible for something a bunch of Turkish and Kurdish men of various ideologies did.

I wish we'd stop interpreting every ideology or political movement that combined nationalism, authoritarianism, and somewhat progressive/modernizing policies as fascist. Because most people who have done that historically have not actually been fascists and may well have had serious political disagreements with fascists.

Its going to make Afghanistan even worse than it is right now.

Mohammed Daoud Khan, the nationalist dictator who preceded the Saur Revolution and imposed a regime of gradual secularization on the country, was arguably led the last functional government Afghanistan ever had. Maybe we need more based nationalists to bully the innovators.

[Fahran]

This explains how Erdogan was able to defeat the shadow secularist Kemalists in the army and air force with a bunch of human chains holding hands and singing in the streets as opposed to shooting them or something.

How glorious it would have been had the coup succeeded!

While Islamist Turks were traditionally better about being racist against Armenians and Kurds, I think Erodgan's recent crackdown, which led to the arbitrary detention of around 50,000 Kurdish people including teachers, journalists, and politicians, probably signals that Islamists can be just as racist as Kemalists.

[Lady Victory]

bruh

It's Pakistan. What were y'all expecting?

Something more, I dunno, subtle? I mean fuck we all know they've been supporting the Taliban since Day 1 but Jesus they went and... broadcasted it. To the fucking world. Yikes.

Kemalism is Fascism.

It's really not, despite taking abundant influence from both Mussolini and Lenin. And Modern Kemalism is quite removed from the ideology of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk himself. Ataturk was a bit removed from the Three Pashas anyway, so I have no idea why we're holding all Kemalists responsible for something a bunch of Turkish and Kurdish men of various ideologies did.

Because Ataturk had a hand in the ethnic cleansing of Armenians through forced Turkification and expulsion of populations in addition to suppression of Armenian cultural identity. The crimes against Armenians didn't end with the Young Turks.

But that's a topic for another thread.

Mohammed Daoud Khan, the nationalist dictator who preceded the Saur Revolution and imposed a regime of gradual secularization on the country, was arguably led the last functional government Afghanistan ever had. Maybe we need more based nationalists to bully the innovators.

Who can say no to based nationalists?

[Insaanistan]

Tajikistan’s People “Haven’t Forgotten” What Ahmad Shah Massoud did for Them, as Taliban Snuff Peace Efforts
NRF Carrying Out Attacks in Kapisa Province
NRF Call for UN to Investigate Khalilzad

[Insaanistan]

Massoud Reportedly in Afghanistan and Tajik President Talks With EU, French Officials

[Kowani]

US envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad resigns

[Fahran]

Something more, I dunno, subtle? I mean fuck we all know they've been supporting the Taliban since Day 1 but Jesus they went and... broadcasted it. To the fucking world. Yikes.

You were expecting subtlety from the country that has literally had anti-Christian pogroms in the past ten years, that continues to produce serial rape gangs at home and in the diaspora, that enshrined hudood penalties in law in the 1970s without the threat of a revolt by Islamist hardliners, and that hid Osama Bin Laden for years?

Because Ataturk had a hand in the ethnic cleansing of Armenians through forced Turkification and expulsion of populations in addition to suppression of Armenian cultural identity. The crimes against Armenians didn't end with the Young Turks.

Well, no, but Ataturk himself is not directly tied to the worst excesses by any means. He was fighting in Gallipoli and along Turkey's western front during the most infamous period of the Armenian Genocide and was then stationed in the Levant alongside General von Falkenhayn and the 7th Army. He was a nationalist and an authoritarian, but he falls a bit short of being complicit in the Armenian Genocide. His military actions against Armenian villages in Cilicia, which had notable French backing, were legitimate and within the reasonable purview of his moral responsibilities - as were his later actions to compel the Greek military to retreat from Izmir. As far I'm aware, he never personally ordered any massacres or targeted attacks on civilians. In point of fact, his policy, as that of all subsequent Kemalists, was to denounce the policies of the Ottomans in general, though Armenia was avoided for very obvious reasons. Namely that Turks were and still are salty about it being called a genocide.

Who can say no to based nationalists?

Even more based monarchists?

[Lady Victory]

Something more, I dunno, subtle? I mean fuck we all know they've been supporting the Taliban since Day 1 but Jesus they went and... broadcasted it. To the fucking world. Yikes.

You were expecting subtlety from the country that has literally had anti-Christian pogroms, that continues to produce serial rape gangs at home and in the diaspora, that enshrined hudood penalties in law in the 1970s without the threat of a revolt by Islamist hardliners, and that hid Osama Bin Laden for years?

Hhhmmmm, good point.

Well, no, but Ataturk himself is not directly tied to the worst excesses by any means. He was fighting in Gallipoli and along Turkey's western front during the most infamous period of the Armenian Genocide and was then stationed in the Levant alongside General von Falkenhayn and the 7th Army. He was a nationalist and an authoritarian, but he falls a bit short of being complicit in the Armenian Genocide. His military actions against Armenian villages in Cilicia, which had notable French backing, were legitimate within the reasonable purview of his moral responsibilities - as were his later actions to compel the Greek military to retreat from Izmir.

I never claimed he had a hand in the Armenian Genocide, which he didn't. But he did begin the systematic erasure of Armenian cultural identity throughout Turkey in the aftermath of WWI as part of a wider campaign of preventing the balkanization of Turkey at the hands of the Allied Powers by solidifying a Turkish national identity at the expense of non-Turks.

Even more based monarchists?

Based monarchists? That's an oxymoron. Monarchism is hella cringe.

[Salus Maior]

His military actions against Armenian villages in Cilicia, which had notable French backing, were legitimate and within the reasonable purview of his moral responsibilities - as were his later actions to compel the Greek military to retreat from Izmir.

Of course you would think that.

There's nothing moral about ethnic cleansing, which more or less was an extension of the Ottoman genocides and meant to consolidate Turkish homogeneity in the country.

[Salus Maior]

Who can say no to based nationalists?

People who actually have read about the consequences of Nationalist thinking.

And no, it's not just the Nazis.

[Fahran]

Of course you would think that.

There's nothing moral about ethnic cleansing, which more or less was an extension of the Ottoman genocides and meant to consolidate Turkish homogeneity in the country.

This is going to be more than a little morbid, but, by the time Ataturk made his way to Cilicia in 1919, the Armenian population had already been ethnically cleansed to the point that a viable state was impossible. 25,000 Armenians were massacred in 1909 and 70,000 more were deported in 1912. These attempts at ethnic cleansing occurred under the Ottomans. The attempt to repatriate less than 200,000 Armenians to Cilicia by the French was more of a ploy to secure themselves a sphere of influence than an earnest attempt to ensure an autonomous Armenian nation.

And I have no idea why you're saying "of course" I'd think that given I've pointed out that a theoretical Greater Armenia would rightly encompass much of Eastern Anatolia and portions of the Levant, including much of the territory claimed by Kurdish nationalists. Because Armenians were a slim majority or a strong minority in all of these regions depending on who you ask. It's just not really a fact that Ataturk personally committed genocide or ethnic cleansing in a discernible way. The burning of the Greek Quarter of Izmir, which wasn't ordered or condoned, is about as close as he gets.

In point of fact, however, the Adana Vilayet was actually a majority Turkish administrative region by 1897. It had 158,000 Muslims (mostly Turkic peoples), 46,200 Greeks, and 97,450 Armenians according to the Ottoman census of the time. It was on of the areas of historical importance to the empire's Christian minorities, having made up Cilician Armenia and having a disproportionate number of Greeks and Armenians, but it was a majority Turkish region.

[Salus Maior]

Of course you would think that.

There's nothing moral about ethnic cleansing, which more or less was an extension of the Ottoman genocides and meant to consolidate Turkish homogeneity in the country.

This is going to be more than a little morbid, but, by the time Ataturk made his way to Cilicia in 1919, the Armenian population had already been ethnically cleansed to the point that a viable state was impossible. 25,000 Armenians were massacred in 1909 and 70,000 more were deported in 1912. These attempts at ethnic cleansing occurred under the Ottomans. The attempt to repatriate less than 200,000 Armenians to Cilicia by the French was more of a ploy to secure themselves a sphere of influence than an earnest attempt to ensure an autonomous Armenian nation.

And I have no idea where you're saying "of course" I'd think that given I've pointed out that a theoretical Greater Armenia would rightly encompass much of Eastern Anatolia and portions of the Levant, including much of the territory claimed by Kurdish nationalists. Because Armenians were a slim majority or a strong minority in all of these regions depending on who you ask.

Most of those Armenians had already lived in Cilicia before being explused by the Ottomans and again by the Nationalist Turks when they tried to return home. They were trying to return to their homes, and were expulsed again by the Turks. It's little different from Polish Jews returning to their homes in Poland after WWII to find themselves expulsed again by the locals. There's no morality in that, it's sheer injustice and depriving an already deprived people.

And I say "of course" because it's perfectly natural for an Israeli nationalist to view ethnic cleansing as a means of national security.

[Fahran]

Most of those Armenians had already lived in Cilicia before being explused by the Ottomans and again by the Nationalist Turks when they tried to return home.

They were expelled by the Ottomans. From what I can discern, there was no serious attempt to return to the Adana Vilayet en masse by Armenians. Too many people had been killed for that, which, given the scope of the Armenian Genocide, isn't surprising. I'd estimate that over half of all Armenians were murdered by Turkish and Kurdish military units, both regular and irregular. Notably, this occurred on the eastern front at a time when Ataturk was on the western front.

The Armenian portion of the French colonial forces number at most eleven thousand, and, even including the civilians and Levantine Armenians, would have been dwarfed by the local Turkish population, even before the 1900s. Beyond that, it's not an absurd statement to assert that over half of the Cilician Armenian population was murdered or expelled under the Ottomans. The conservative number would be 95,000 Armenians killed or ethnically cleansed by first the Sultan and then the Three Pashas.

The force Ataturk was fighting against outside of very specific localities was overwhelmingly French. According to Wikipedia (yes, I know bad source), there were 11,000 Armenians, 70,000 French, and 25,000 Turks involved. And the largest evacuation of this period, being Marash, involved at most 2,000 Armenians who left alongside 3,000 French soldiers.

They were trying to return to their homes, and were expulsed again by the Turks. It's little different from Polish Jews returning to their homes in Poland after WWII to find themselves expulsed again by the locals. There's no morality in that, it's sheer injustice and depriving an already deprived people.

I mean... my main point here is that Ataturk didn't really engage in ethnic cleansing. He defeated a largely French military force in Cilicia that happened to have local support from the few Armenians who remained. If you want to talk about how the Armenian Genocide was unjust, you're not going to get much disagreement from me. But trying to assert that Ataturk was involved in it is... a bit ahistorical. That just didn't happen.

And I say "of course" because it's perfectly natural for an Israeli nationalist to view ethnic cleansing as a means of national security.

I've literally never made that argument from my own perspective.

[Salus Maior]

Most of those Armenians had already lived in Cilicia before being explused by the Ottomans and again by the Nationalist Turks when they tried to return home.

They were expelled by the Ottomans. From what I can discern, there was no serious attempt to return to the Adana Vilayet en masse by Armenians. Too many people had been killed for that, which, given the scope of the Armenian Genocide, isn't surprising. I'd estimate that over half of all Armenians were murdered by Turkish and Kurdish military units, both regular and irregular.

The Armenian portion of the French colonial forces number at most eleven thousand, and, even including the civilians, would have been dwarfed by the local Turkish population, even before the 1900s. It's not an absurd statement to assert that over half of the Cilician Armenian population was murdered or expelled under the Ottomans. The conservative number would be 95,000 Armenians killed or ethnically cleansed by first the Sultan and then the Three Pashas.

The force Ataturk was fighting against outside of very specific localities was overwhelmingly French.

They were trying to return to their homes, and were expulsed again by the Turks. It's little different from Polish Jews returning to their homes in Poland after WWII to find themselves expulsed again by the locals. There's no morality in that, it's sheer injustice and depriving an already deprived people.

I mean... my main point here is that Ataturk didn't really engage in ethnic cleansing. He defeated a largely French military force in Cilicia that happened to have local support from the few Armenians who remained. If you want to talk about how the Armenian Genocide was unjust, you're not going to get much disagreement from me. But trying to assert that Ataturk was involved in it is... a bit ahistorical. That just didn't happen.

And I say "of course" because it's perfectly natural for an Israeli nationalist to view ethnic cleansing as a means of national security.

I've literally never made that argument from my own perspective.

Ataturk certainly didn't have a problem with the ethnic cleansing nor the genocide. And certainly did nothing to protect Armenians or Anatolian Greeks from being expulsed and pogromed. Because why would he?

Then you shouldn't have any problem with Palestinians being given a right of return by Israel. But I know you do.

[Fahran]

Ataturk certainly didn't have a problem with the ethnic cleansing nor the genocide. And certainly did nothing to protect Armenians or Anatolian Greeks from being expulsed and pogromed. Because why would he?

Probably not, but he doesn't seem to have been a particularly strong advocate for it historically, unlike Abdulhamid II or Talaat Pasha. Most of his "ethnic cleansing" is confined to defeating conventional military forces that engaged in the ethnic cleansing of Turks and/or the partition of Turkey to service Greece or France - notably in territories where Turks had been in the majority for around a century or two. He didn't prance around presiding over massacres of Greeks and Armenians. And modern Kemalists aren't any more likely to do that than Turkish Islamists, which is why Erdogan was so keen on helping the Azeris defeat and then ethnically cleanse the Armenians.

Then you shouldn't have any problem with Palestinians being given a right of return by Israel. But I know you do.

My reason for opposing the right of return is that it would actually weaken the peace process on multiple levels. I support a two-state solution because a two-state solution is the only thing that doesn't lead to another war, massacres and expulsions, and/or an ethnic hierarchy suppressing all non-dominant groups throughout the Southern Levant.

But we're way off-topic at this point.

[Kowani]

the one bright spot

For the first time in three years, the Taliban has agreed to allow health workers from the United Nations to begin a nationwide polio vaccination campaign in Afghanistan, according to the World Health Organization and UNICEF.

The door-to-door campaign, in which health workers go from one house to another to administer vaccines, is scheduled to begin next month across the country. The Taliban has not yet confirmed the announcement from UNICEF and the WHO, according to the Associated Press.

Afghanistan is one of only two countries, along with Pakistan, where polio is still endemic. Vaccination campaigns there have long been hindered by Taliban opposition and vaccine hesitancy.

There are 10 million children under the age of five in Afghanistan, a third of whom have not had access to vaccines in recent years because of violence and a Taliban prohibition on vaccinators operating in areas under their control.

"This is not only a win for Afghanistan but also a win for the region as it opens a real path to achieve wild poliovirus eradication," said Dr. Ahmed Al-Mandhari, the WHO regional director overseeing Afghanistan, in a press release. "The urgency with which the Taliban leadership wants the polio campaign to proceed demonstrates a joint commitment to maintain the health system and restart essential immunizations to avert further outbreaks of preventable diseases."

Aid organizations have battled misinformation and rampant conspiracy theories about Western vaccination campaigns seeking to sterilize Muslim children. Others claim vaccinators are spies, a lingering legacy of the CIA using a fake vaccination campaign to find Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011. And when the coronavirus pandemic hit in March 2020, the WHO ordered a pause of its campaigns to ensure that health workers weren't inadvertently spreading COVID-19.

Experts had worried that the lack of widespread vaccinations could lead to an eruption of polio cases, which had been ticking up in 2019 and 2020. But only one case of wild polio has been reported so far in 2021, the WHO said, making this an "extraordinary opportunity" to eradicate the disease.

The Taliban has also agreed in principle to the need for vaccinations against measles and COVID-19, according to the WHO. The Taliban has also reportedly said it is committed to allowing women to participate as frontline workers — and guarantees the safety of health workers across the country.

[Insaanistan]

Recent Video of Afghan Civilians and NRF Fighters, Exact Location Unclear

[Insaanistan]

Benard-Henri Lévy: Massoud “In and Out of Panjshir” and Refusing to Surrender

[Yaak]

Recent Video of Afghan Civilians and NRF Fighters, Exact Location Unclear

Makes me glad that the Taliban's on the run.

[Insaanistan]

Supposesly Video of Taliban Fighters Just Captured in Andarab

[Spacies]

Massoud still going strong then... And savvy enough to keep reporting images of small victories.

[Insaanistan]

Video (With English Subs) From Yesterday of NRF Fighters Joking in the Rain, Planning What to do Next

[Kowani]

US nearing formal agreement to use Pakistan's airspace to carry out military and intelligence operations in Afghanistan

The Biden administration has told lawmakers that the US is nearing a formalized agreement with Pakistan for use of its airspace to conduct military and intelligence operations in Afghanistan, according to three sources familiar with the details of a classified briefing with members of Congress that took place on Friday morning.

Pakistan has expressed a desire to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in exchange for assistance with its own counterterrorism efforts and help in managing the relationship with India, one of the sources said. But the negotiations are ongoing, another source said, and the terms of the agreement, which has not been finalized, could still change.
The briefing comes as the White House is still trying to ensure that it can carry out counterterrorism operations against ISIS-K and other adversaries in Afghanistan now that there is no longer a US presence on the ground for the first time in two decades after the NATO withdrawal from the country. The US military currently uses Pakistan's airspace to reach Afghanistan as part of ongoing intelligence-gathering efforts, but there is no formal agreement in place to ensure continued access to a critical piece of airspace necessary for the US to reach Afghanistan. The air corridor through Pakistan to Afghanistan may become even more critical if and when the US resumes flights into Kabul to fly out American citizens and others who remain in the country. The third source said that an agreement was discussed when US officials visited Pakistan, but it's not yet clear what Pakistan wants or how much the US would be willing to give in return.

With no formal agreement currently in place, the US runs the risk of Pakistan refusing entry to US military aircraft and drones en route to Afghanistan.

A Pentagon spokesman said the Defense Department does not comment on closed briefings due to security classifications. CNN has reached out to the National Security Council and Pakistan Embassy in Washington for comment. Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement saying "no such understanding was in place," and that "Pakistan and the U.S. have longstanding cooperation on regional security and counter-terrorism and the two sides remain engaged in regular consultations." The State Department declined to comment.