Afghan Conflict: Zelenskyy, NRF Attend Danish Summit

[Nociav]

I will never understand how people can be so unsympathetic towards Afghanistan's suffering. "We must not let the Taliban get even a slight material or immaterial benefit in any shape or form". The same logic that justified sanctions that killed half a million Iraqis. Completely inhumane. This money belongs to Afghanistan and its people. Not a single Afghan hijacked a plane on 9/11 but 40 million of them have to suffer because of it.

Indeed, the war in Afghanistan as wrong, the suffering of the people unwarranted.

Do not mistake “Do not give recognition to the Taliban” for “F*ck the Afghan people”: I quite literally made a post not to long ago about how we need to not forget that Afghanistan is quite literally starving.

But there are alternatives to giving the Taliban everything they want. I don’t know about you, but I have a particular aversion to legitimizing terrorist groups.

We can understand the US was wrong without rewarding people simply for being against the US. The Taliban are not simply vigilantes, they’re terrorists, who quite frankly have had a great deal of difficulty getting the global community & most of the Afghan population to recognize them, the latter being especially against them due to the fact they’re still largely associated with Pakistan (or with the United States: I recall an incident of NRF fighters capturing a Talib in Afghanistan who was from Pakistan who when they questioned him said “I came to Afghanistan to fight America”, prompting the NRF members to laugh & reply “America is in Islamabad”) & largely either grew up in a world without Taliban rule & only knew them as the terrorists who blow themselves & civilians up & kill the nation’s soldiers, or are old enough to remember Taliban rule & how terrible it was.

The Taliban haven’t changed, they’ve just learned how to use the internet & how to lie more.

Handing the money back to DAB wasn't even the only choice. Keeping it frozen was an infinitely better option since atleast there is something, in theory, backing the currency and economy. Now there's nothing. The complete aversion to working with the Taliban, although sensical, doesn't work if humanitarian concerns occupy top priority. Click the link in my signature to see exactly why working with the Taliban is far better than not.

[A White Africa]

I'm sure there will be a bunch of news & commentary to come, but what do you folks see the road ahead being? Are the Taliban going to become more aggressive towards the outside world and the Afghan population now? Or the opposite; are they going to put themselves up for sale to any state actors willing to help lay the foundations of a totally new national economy?

I would think the first move for them will be to proceed full steam ahead with Turkmenistan regarding the natural gas pipeline to India. That'll be quicker than, say, trying to get China to set up everything needed for mining to begin.

[Nociav]

I'm sure there will be a bunch of news & commentary to come, but what do you folks see the road ahead being? Are the Taliban going to become more aggressive towards the outside world and the Afghan population now? Or the opposite; are they going to put themselves up for sale to any state actors willing to help lay the foundations of a totally new national economy?

I would think the first move for them will be to proceed full steam ahead with Turkmenistan regarding the natural gas pipeline to India. That'll be quicker than, say, trying to get China to set up everything needed for mining to begin.

The Taliban are going to give the world the middle finger all over again. When Mullah Omar banned poppy cultivation in exchange for recognition, he was greatly disillusioned with the world when the plan fell through. So, he blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas.

[Fahran]

I will never understand how people can be so unsympathetic towards Afghanistan's suffering. "We must not let the Taliban get even a slight material or immaterial benefit in any shape or form".

The fact that it's largely immaterial to the suffering of Afghans is why I'm pretty unconcerned. It benefits Americans who the Taliban helped to victimize, damages the Taliban, and leaves Afghans about where they were before - which is going to be the case until aid begins again.

The same logic that justified sanctions that killed half a million Iraqis.

This isn't actually true. It was literally Baathist propaganda, albeit propaganda that misquotes and misrepresents actual research.

Yet a crucial myth surrounding the Iraq War still commands widespread belief—that economic sanctions aimed at Saddam Hussein and his regime killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children in the 1990s and early 2000s. The supposed lethality of economic sanctions was used as an argument for invading Iraq, as Walter Russell Mead would argue in March 2003: "Saddam Hussein is 65; containing him for another 10 years condemns at least another 360,000 Iraqis to death. Of these, 240,000 will be children under five."

And, as we shall see, the sanctions myth is still used to justify the war. There were no hundreds of thousands of extra deaths.

The claim that sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children originated in a 1995 letter to The Lancet which, in turn, was based on a Baghdad survey done by Sarah Zaidi and colleagues. After other researchers identified anomalies in the survey data, Zaidi, to her great credit, re-investigated the work from the ground up. Having sub-contracted the original interviews to the Iraqi government, she traveled to Baghdad and re-interviewed many of the original households. When Zaidi failed to confirm quite a few of the reported deaths in these follow-up interviews, she retracted her results.

For the rest of your life, whenever you see a survey, ask yourself a simple question: Who guarantees the integrity of the field work for this survey? It made a world of difference in the present case when Sarah Zaidi shifted this responsibility from some Iraqi government workers to herself.

Sadly, the retraction came too late—the genie was already out of the bottle. In May 1996, shortly after the publication of Zaidi’s original letter, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, had the following rather shocking and fateful exchange on American national television...

Lesley Stahl (of CBS News): "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.”

These remarks became a notorious example of extreme American callousness toward the Muslim world.

A few months later, in August 1996, Osama bin Laden cited the deaths of 600,000 Iraqi children in a fatwa declaring war against the U.S. "More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation," he said. "The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children."

Over the years, bin Laden hammered the U.S. repeatedly on the theme of sanctions killing Iraqi children, citing “the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known” as one of his three main justifications for the 9/11 attack.

In fact, several years prior to 9/11, a new UNICEF survey of child mortality in Iraq appeared in The Lancet. Apparently learning nothing from Sarah Zaidi’s experience, UNICEF did not place itself in a position to guarantee the integrity of the field work underpinning its survey, again delegating this responsibility to Iraqi government workers. This survey, like Zaidi’s original one, found hundreds of thousands of child deaths. Once again, the storyline that sanctions were killing massive numbers of Iraqi children had scientific respectability.

Yet over the next decade this UNICEF survey also fell by the wayside as three subsequent surveys (one sponsored again by UNICEF, another by the U.N. Development Progam, and a third by the World Health Organization) found no evidence to support UNICEF’s earlier claimed spike in child mortality rates in 1990s Iraq.

Yet another reason the invasion of Iraq was a bad move. Sanctions and a no-fly zone worked as a response to Saddam Hussein's genocides. We should have been more proactive about protecting the Marsh Arabs, but the response to Al Anfal was fine.

Also, yet another reason Osama Bin Laden was an imbecile who was right about pretty much nothing. Never mind that no one is obligated to answer to the demands of a loony who isn't representative of any government or population, and who was a massive hypocrite.

Completely inhumane. This money belongs to Afghanistan and its people. Not a single Afghan hijacked a plane on 9/11 but 40 million of them have to suffer because of it.

I mean... the Taliban literally hosted and collaborated with the people who carried out an act of war against multiple countries, murdering their citizens for no legitimate reason.

And 40 million Afghans are already suffering because their economy was propped up by economic aid and the Taliban conquering the country caused the aid to be shut off and spooked the markets relevant to Afghanistan. I mean... the Taliban have probably thrust millions of families into relative poverty by putting restrictions on women and ethnically cleansing folks and stealing their stuff.

Not really sure why we're blaming anyone else for the ongoing crisis. Countries aren't obligated to provide international aid. Especially not to regimes that are carrying out some pretty nasty acts of ethnic cleansing and that helped to murder their citizens.

[Nociav]

I will never understand how people can be so unsympathetic towards Afghanistan's suffering. "We must not let the Taliban get even a slight material or immaterial benefit in any shape or form".

The fact that it's largely immaterial to the suffering of Afghans is why I'm pretty unconcerned. It benefits Americans who the Taliban helped to victimize, damages the Taliban, and leaves Afghans about where they were before - which is going to be the case until aid begins again.

The same logic that justified sanctions that killed half a million Iraqis.

This isn't actually true. It was literally Baathist propaganda, albeit propaganda that misquotes and misrepresents actual research.

Yet a crucial myth surrounding the Iraq War still commands widespread belief—that economic sanctions aimed at Saddam Hussein and his regime killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children in the 1990s and early 2000s. The supposed lethality of economic sanctions was used as an argument for invading Iraq, as Walter Russell Mead would argue in March 2003: "Saddam Hussein is 65; containing him for another 10 years condemns at least another 360,000 Iraqis to death. Of these, 240,000 will be children under five."

And, as we shall see, the sanctions myth is still used to justify the war. There were no hundreds of thousands of extra deaths.

The claim that sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children originated in a 1995 letter to The Lancet which, in turn, was based on a Baghdad survey done by Sarah Zaidi and colleagues. After other researchers identified anomalies in the survey data, Zaidi, to her great credit, re-investigated the work from the ground up. Having sub-contracted the original interviews to the Iraqi government, she traveled to Baghdad and re-interviewed many of the original households. When Zaidi failed to confirm quite a few of the reported deaths in these follow-up interviews, she retracted her results.

For the rest of your life, whenever you see a survey, ask yourself a simple question: Who guarantees the integrity of the field work for this survey? It made a world of difference in the present case when Sarah Zaidi shifted this responsibility from some Iraqi government workers to herself.

Sadly, the retraction came too late—the genie was already out of the bottle. In May 1996, shortly after the publication of Zaidi’s original letter, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, had the following rather shocking and fateful exchange on American national television...

Lesley Stahl (of CBS News): "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.”

These remarks became a notorious example of extreme American callousness toward the Muslim world.

A few months later, in August 1996, Osama bin Laden cited the deaths of 600,000 Iraqi children in a fatwa declaring war against the U.S. "More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation," he said. "The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children."

Over the years, bin Laden hammered the U.S. repeatedly on the theme of sanctions killing Iraqi children, citing “the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known” as one of his three main justifications for the 9/11 attack.

In fact, several years prior to 9/11, a new UNICEF survey of child mortality in Iraq appeared in The Lancet. Apparently learning nothing from Sarah Zaidi’s experience, UNICEF did not place itself in a position to guarantee the integrity of the field work underpinning its survey, again delegating this responsibility to Iraqi government workers. This survey, like Zaidi’s original one, found hundreds of thousands of child deaths. Once again, the storyline that sanctions were killing massive numbers of Iraqi children had scientific respectability.

Yet over the next decade this UNICEF survey also fell by the wayside as three subsequent surveys (one sponsored again by UNICEF, another by the U.N. Development Progam, and a third by the World Health Organization) found no evidence to support UNICEF’s earlier claimed spike in child mortality rates in 1990s Iraq.

Yet another reason the invasion of Iraq was a bad move. Sanctions and a no-fly zone worked as a response to Saddam Hussein's genocides. We should have been more proactive about protecting the Marsh Arabs, but the response to Al Anfal was fine.

Also, yet another reason Osama Bin Laden was an imbecile who was right about pretty much nothing. Never mind that no one is obligated to answer to the demands of a loony who isn't representative of any government or population, and who was a massive hypocrite.

Completely inhumane. This money belongs to Afghanistan and its people. Not a single Afghan hijacked a plane on 9/11 but 40 million of them have to suffer because of it.

I mean... the Taliban literally hosted and collaborated with the people who carried out an act of war against multiple countries, murdering their citizens for no legitimate reason.

And 40 million Afghans are already suffering because their economy was propped up by economic aid and the Taliban conquering the country caused the aid to be shut off and spooked the markets relevant to Afghanistan. I mean... the Taliban have probably thrust millions of families into relative poverty by putting restrictions on women and ethnically cleansing folks and stealing their stuff.

Not really sure why we're blaming anyone else for the ongoing crisis. Countries aren't obligated to provide international aid. Especially not to regimes that are carrying out some pretty nasty acts of ethnic cleansing and that helped to murder their citizens.

> Shut off aid
> Steal money
> Cripple the economy
> Refuse to adjust sanctions
> Leave 90% of Afghans in starvation
> "Not our responsibility"
> "Fuck you Taliban"

Utterly bullshit. 40 million Afghans get punished for something they didn't do, yet again. Using mass starvation as a weapon against the Taliban is cruelty at its worst.

Let's see how serious you even are about your incessant shouts of ethnic cleansing and genocide. The Northern Alliance raped, pillaged, murdered their way through Pashtun villages across northern Afghanistan. Was that genocide or not?

[Fahran]

> Shut off aid
> Steal money
> Cripple the economy
> Refuse to adjust sanctions
> Leave 90% of Afghans in starvation
> "Not our responsibility"
> "Fuck you Taliban"

Utterly bullshit. 40 million Afghans get punished for something they didn't do, yet again. Using mass starvation as a weapon against the Taliban is cruelty at its worst.

Again, the problem is that the Taliban cannot run a sound economy and have never been able to run a sound economy. Part of that is the fact that they're trying to govern post-war Afghanistan, which has been devastated by decades of internal conflict. Part of that is they're assholes who have managed to alienate everyone who isn't Pakistan. Ambushing aid workers, engaging in ethnic cleansing, helping to murder multiple countries' citizens, and banning half the population from public life during a humanitarian crisis will do that. Here's what the World Bank had to say about Afghanistan in the 1990s.

Afghanistan’s economy is in a state of collapse. The three-year drought and
resulting famine, the ban on opium production, the choking of trade via Pakistan and the
massive displacement of population have exhausted what coping capacity was left among
families and civil society. The key economic institutions of State—a central bank,
treasury, tax collection and customs, statistics, civil service, law and order, judicial
system—are extremely week or simply missing. Basic infrastructure—roads, bridges,
irrigation, canals, telecommunications, electricity, markets—have been destroyed.
Afghanistan, which has always been at bottom of the poverty and social indicator
rankings of countries, must now be considered the poorest, most miserable state in the
world.

Source

The "crippling" you described was direct aid to the former government evaporating and capital draining from the country because foreigners don't trust the Taliban to be decent and non-arbitrary. Again, this was 42% of Afghanistan's economy. And that's before we get to the Taliban shutting half the population out of said economy for really stupid reasons.

So we're talking about a country that dramatically benefitted from foreign aid over the past couple decades, and that has otherwise not had a reliable means of developing or sustaining itself economically. And aid continues to come despite the Taliban being dicks and shooting themselves in the foot. Again. Taking money that would have gone into stabilizing a regime that is filled with seriously awful people isn't anywhere near as bad as you're characterizing it. Especially when the US and others have been bankrolling and supporting aid that doesn't directly benefit the regime - to this day.

And I feel like supporting a bad and belligerent government to ensure stability is a road to Hell in the long-term if we apply that standard everywhere. What do you want the Americans to do here? What's your aspirational goal for Afghanistan and how will you get there?

Let's see how serious you even are about your incessant shouts of ethnic cleansing and genocide. The Northern Alliance raped, pillaged, murdered their way through Pashtun villages across northern Afghanistan. Was that genocide or not?

Yes. Dostum, in particular, as well as many others, was/were and is/are a war criminal(s) who should be put up against a wall and shot. Between 2001 and 2016, multiple massacres and mass instances of war rape occurred, primarily against Pashtun women, and those were completely unacceptable. Massoud seems to have been a bit better than the other warlords, though that's difficult to surmise given he died before the more recent bouts of fighting, but none of these people were ideal administrators and pretty much all of them were war criminals on some level.

Throughout, U.S. policy was guided by a number of myths. One was that the Afghan strongmen, warlords, and militia commanders the United States chose as allies in ousting the Taliban could help to provide security and stability, despite their records of abuses. In fact, the opposite proved to be the case. Persistent human rights abuses by warlords were a source of insecurity, and worse, over time, they fueled widespread resentment, undermined efforts to foster good governance at the local and national levels, and helped the Taliban obtain new support and recruits.

In late 2001, after Northern Alliance forces ousted the Taliban from the north, their militias – some led by men holding office today – carried out systematic attacks on Pashtun villages, raping women, summarily executing civilians, and stealing livestock and land. (Such attacks occurred as late as 2016, when militia forces under the former vice president, Abdul Rashid Dostum, terrorized Pashtun villages in Faryab, accusing them of supporting the Taliban.) The United States was inevitably linked to the abuses of its allies: In November 2001, Dostum’s forces massacred as many as 2,000 Taliban prisoners who were captured or had surrendered outside Kunduz. I visited the mass grave – littered with human hair and clothes – in February 2002, and later interviewed a survivor who had hidden, wounded, under a pile of bodies and escaped before the bulldozers came to bury the bodies. (The area, called Dasht-e Laili, has thousands of graves, including those of Hazara victims massacred by the Taliban in 1998, and Taliban prisoners killed by a Dostum rival in 1997). The United Nations initially refused to support a full investigation, and the United States rejected calls to protect the site. By 2006, local militias had destroyed the gravesite. But the Taliban and the families of those killed have not forgotten.

War crimes against Taliban prisoners also occurred in the south. In early 2002, former Taliban wrote to the new Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, offering to lay down arms and recognize the government. Instead, Gul Agha Sherzai, a powerful tribal leader the United States embraced, later accused of corruption, had them imprisoned and tortured by the National Directorate of Security (NDS), the intelligence agency created by the CIA in the months after the Taliban’s collapse. Others accused of Taliban links – whether true or not – also died under torture in NDS prisons or at CIA black sites. Some ended up at Guantanamo Bay. A number who were released or escaped later remobilized and helped lead the Taliban resurgence.

Source

[Nociav]

Again, the problem is that the Taliban cannot run a sound economy and have never been able to run a sound economy. Part of that is the fact that they're trying to govern post-war Afghanistan, which has been devastated by decades of internal conflict. Part of that is they're assholes who have managed to alienate everyone who isn't Pakistan. Ambushing aid workers, engaging in ethnic cleansing, helping to murder multiple countries' citizens, and banning half the population from public life during a humanitarian crisis will do that. Here's what the World Bank had to say about Afghanistan in the 1990s.

Afghanistan’s economy is in a state of collapse. The three-year drought and
resulting famine, the ban on opium production, the choking of trade via Pakistan and the
massive displacement of population have exhausted what coping capacity was left among
families and civil society. The key economic institutions of State—a central bank,
treasury, tax collection and customs, statistics, civil service, law and order, judicial
system—are extremely week or simply missing. Basic infrastructure—roads, bridges,
irrigation, canals, telecommunications, electricity, markets—have been destroyed.
Afghanistan, which has always been at bottom of the poverty and social indicator
rankings of countries, must now be considered the poorest, most miserable state in the
world.

Source

So we're talking about a country that dramatically benefitted from foreign aid over the past couple decades. And aid continues to come despite the Taliban being dicks and shooting themselves in the foot. Again. Taking money that would have gone into stabilizing a regime that is filled with seriously awful people isn't anywhere near as bad as you're characterizing it. Especially when the US and others have been bankrolling and supporting aid that doesn't directly benefit the regime - to this day.

And I feel like supporting a bad and belligerent government to ensure stability is a road to Hell in the long-term if we apply that standard everywhere.

The west shot Afghanistan in the kneecaps then blames it for not being able to stand. When humanitarian groups say the working with the Taliban and stabilising it would be the best, from what position do you argue against. Are you more expert than Crisis Group in giving humanitarian help?

Yes. Dostum, in particular, was and is a war criminal who should be put against a wall and shot. Between 2001 and 2016, multiple massacres and mass instances of war rape occurred, primarily against Pashtun women, and those were completely unacceptable. Massoud seems to have been a bit better than the other warlords, though that's difficult to surmise given he died before the more recent bouts of fighting, but none of these people were ideal administrators and pretty much all of them were war criminals on some level.

Make it simple. Say "Yes it was genocide", or "No it was not genocide". Don't tell me what I already know. Tell me plainly what you think.

[Fahran]

The west shot Afghanistan in the kneecaps then blames it for not being able to stand. When humanitarian groups say the working with the Taliban and stabilising it would be the best, from what position do you argue against. Are you more expert than Crisis Group in giving humanitarian help?

Again, this "shot" was cutting off direct economic aid from the American government to the Afghan government - aid that had built vital infrastructure that is now on the verge of collapsing, schools that have now excluded half their potential pupils, etc. It's more like the Soviets, Northern Alliance, and Taliban put Afghanistan in a sack and beat it to within an inch of its life. Then NATO gave it a crutch that allowed it to get by for a little bit. Then, due to that crutch being imperialistic and expensive, we took it away. You seem to want Americans and others to subsidize Afghanistan, and the Taliban, more than they're already doing - and I should emphasize, again, that aid is still being funnelled into Afghanistan to address the crisis. Despite the Taliban making that more difficult than it needs to be by refusing to allow female aid workers into the country. 'Cause the sexism is more important than children not starving in Kabul apparently.

While I'm not a huge fan of sanctions that impact entire populations, the Taliban is absolutely a regime that warrants warfare or sanctions when we compare it to others that have existed in the modern era. They helped to carry out an act of war against around half the world. They're racist and sexist in measurable ways. They carried out multiple acts of genocide/ethnic cleansing. And they've historically run a literal theocratic narco-state. I don't think you can fault people for not wanting to treat them as good actors on the geopolitical stage. Especially when a lot of the logic behind the American withdrawal was not being tied to Afghanistan anymore. If we wanted human rights and the human condition to prosper in Afghanistan, NATO would have occupied it for another generation and continued fighting the war directly. So what we did to the Germans and Japanese.

That's very specifically not something the Taliban want. They want to have their cake and eat it too, when they've done nothing to even earn the cake. "Yes, I know we supported mass murderers in an act of war against you, carry out acts of genocide, and hate women so much that we're willing to let tens of thousands of innocent people die to keep our sexist rules in place but please give us free money."

Make it simple. Say "Yes it was genocide", or "No it was not genocide". Don't tell me what I already know. Tell me plainly what you think.

Yes. Massacres and war rape based on ethnicity are acts of genocide. Not really sure why you'd expect me to say anything different.

[Sungoldy-China]

No wonder America needs democracy,

There are so many idiots, if you don't use democracy , you can't find enough liars to collect money.

One benefit of democracy is that leaders can, at least theoretically, be held to account at regular intervals, though that's largely dependent on a political community being comprised of virtuous, prudent, and lion-hearted citizens. I wouldn't go quite so far as to refer to my fellow countrymen, or the people of any other country for that matter, as idiots. The majority are probably of average intelligence, and motivated by concerns that are sensible to them. That said, culture and standards matter a great deal more than we often acknowledge and liberalism has often of late eroded both.

Is anyone take responsible for the colossal war crimes and corruption in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

The only punishment for a democratic society is to lose the next election is ridiculous.

For the so-called social harmony, the new government will not hold the previous government accountable, but can easily overthrow the previous government's policies.

This year , This administration and Congress passed the 'Amercia COMPETES Act 0f 2022' while George W. Bush pass a 'Amercia COMPETES Act ' in 2007 while Obama have his own 'Amercia COMPETES Act ' in 2011.

So ,Which administration will be held accountable for the success and failure of these similar bills? What does so-called responsible democracy do in it?

[Nociav]

Again, this "shot" was cutting off direct economic aid from the American government to the Afghan government - aid that had built vital infrastructure that is now on the verge of collapsing, schools that have now excluded half their potential pupils, etc. It's more like the Soviets, Northern Alliance, and Taliban put Afghanistan in a sack and beat it to within an inch of its life. Then NATO gave it a crutch that allowed it to get by for a little bit. Then, due to that crutch being imperialistic and expensive, we took it away. You seem to want Americans and others to subsidize Afghanistan, and the Taliban, more than they're already doing - and I should emphasize, again, that aid is still being funnelled into Afghanistan to address the crisis. Despite the Taliban making that more difficult than it needs to be by refusing to allow female aid workers into the country. 'Cause the sexism is more important than children not starving in Kabul apparently.

While I'm not a huge fan of sanctions that impact entire populations, the Taliban is absolutely a regime that warrants warfare or sanctions when we compare it to others that have existed in the modern era. They helped to carry out an act of war against around half the world. They're racist and sexist in measurable ways. They carried out multiple acts of genocide/ethnic cleansing. And they've historically run a literal theocratic narco-state. I don't think you can fault people for not wanting to treat them as good actors on the geopolitical stage. Especially when a lot of the logic behind the American withdrawal was not being tied to Afghanistan anymore. If we wanted human rights and the human condition to prosper in Afghanistan, NATO would have occupied it for another generation and continued fighting the war directly. So what we did to the Germans and Japanese.

That's very specifically not something the Taliban want. They want to have their cake and eat it too, when they've done nothing to even earn the cake. "Yes, I know we supported mass murderers in an act of war against you, carry out acts of genocide, and hate women so much that we're willing to let tens of thousands of innocent people die to keep our sexist rules in place but please give us free money."

Try another analogy. The US is sawing Afghanistan at the hip and your justifying it because Afghans and the Soviets took a hammer to its ankles.

The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11. They didn't plan, or execute it. They didn't know it was going to happen. They didn't approve it. If your justification for mass starvation is "the Taliban get punished as well" then your as cruel as Clinton and Bush. Get your priorities straight. Do you care about Afghans? If you want Afghans to suffer then you're on the right track. I'm not cruel. Believing that the starvation of 40 million Afghans is justified because "we're not working with terrorists" shows how skewed your moral compass is. The Taliban are here to stay. Work with them to benefit Afghans, or don't and let Afghans suffer. I know which one I and humanitarian groups go for. You don't get to cut off aid overnight and point elsewhere for the blame, especially not when it's humanitarian groups that point fingers right back at you.

Yes. Massacres and war rape based on ethnicity are acts of genocide. Not really sure why you'd expect me to say anything different.

Neither HRW, the Afghan Justice Project, nor the UN called it a genocide. But at least your consistent in your ridiculous definition of genocide.

[Fahran]

Is anyone take responsible for the colossal war crimes and corruption in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

The only punishment for a democratic society is to lose the next election is ridiculous.

Depending on the "colossal" war crimes in question, some people have already been held responsible. While the system has been far from perfect and a proper investigation into all allegations remains sorely needed, multiple soldiers and military contractors who behaved in evil and illegal ways were charged, convicted, and sentenced to time in prison.

For the so-called social harmony, the new government will not hold the previous government accountable, but can easily overthrow the previous government's policies.

Neither war was illegal. You might be able to get convictions for torture on certain political leaders, but, yeah, I get why Obama didn't throw Bush in prison over torturing members of al-Qaeda.

This year , This administration and Congress passed the 'Amercia COMPETES Act 0f 2022' while George W. Bush pass a 'Amercia COMPETES Act ' in 2007 while Obama have his own 'Amercia COMPETES Act ' in 2011.

So ,Which administration will be held accountable for the success and failure of these similar bills? What does so-called responsible democracy do in it?

How exactly does this relate to Afghanistan at all?

[Insaanistan]

3 Guards of Taliban Commander Hamid Khorasani Reportedly Killed in Panjshir After Khorasani Called for a Door to Door Search & Reinforcements

[Insaanistan]

NRF Continue to Holdout, Train New Recruits in Panjshir; Republic World Claims up to 15 NRF Attacks Have Taken Place in Kabul

[Novus America]

Again, this "shot" was cutting off direct economic aid from the American government to the Afghan government - aid that had built vital infrastructure that is now on the verge of collapsing, schools that have now excluded half their potential pupils, etc. It's more like the Soviets, Northern Alliance, and Taliban put Afghanistan in a sack and beat it to within an inch of its life. Then NATO gave it a crutch that allowed it to get by for a little bit. Then, due to that crutch being imperialistic and expensive, we took it away. You seem to want Americans and others to subsidize Afghanistan, and the Taliban, more than they're already doing - and I should emphasize, again, that aid is still being funnelled into Afghanistan to address the crisis. Despite the Taliban making that more difficult than it needs to be by refusing to allow female aid workers into the country. 'Cause the sexism is more important than children not starving in Kabul apparently.

While I'm not a huge fan of sanctions that impact entire populations, the Taliban is absolutely a regime that warrants warfare or sanctions when we compare it to others that have existed in the modern era. They helped to carry out an act of war against around half the world. They're racist and sexist in measurable ways. They carried out multiple acts of genocide/ethnic cleansing. And they've historically run a literal theocratic narco-state. I don't think you can fault people for not wanting to treat them as good actors on the geopolitical stage. Especially when a lot of the logic behind the American withdrawal was not being tied to Afghanistan anymore. If we wanted human rights and the human condition to prosper in Afghanistan, NATO would have occupied it for another generation and continued fighting the war directly. So what we did to the Germans and Japanese.

That's very specifically not something the Taliban want. They want to have their cake and eat it too, when they've done nothing to even earn the cake. "Yes, I know we supported mass murderers in an act of war against you, carry out acts of genocide, and hate women so much that we're willing to let tens of thousands of innocent people die to keep our sexist rules in place but please give us free money."

Try another analogy. The US is sawing Afghanistan at the hip and your justifying it because Afghans and the Soviets took a hammer to its ankles.

The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11. They didn't plan, or execute it. They didn't know it was going to happen. They didn't approve it. If your justification for mass starvation is "the Taliban get punished as well" then your as cruel as Clinton and Bush. Get your priorities straight. Do you care about Afghans? If you want Afghans to suffer then you're on the right track. I'm not cruel. Believing that the starvation of 40 million Afghans is justified because "we're not working with terrorists" shows how skewed your moral compass is. The Taliban are here to stay. Work with them to benefit Afghans, or don't and let Afghans suffer. I know which one I and humanitarian groups go for. You don't get to cut off aid overnight and point elsewhere for the blame, especially not when it's humanitarian groups that point fingers right back at you.

Yes. Massacres and war rape based on ethnicity are acts of genocide. Not really sure why you'd expect me to say anything different.

Neither HRW, the Afghan Justice Project, nor the UN called it a genocide. But at least your consistent in your ridiculous definition of genocide.

The Taliban did absolutely know Al Qaeda was launching attacks from Afghanistan and fully tolerated, even supporting them doing so. Not knowing the details of every attack they were helping support does not make them not complicit.

This is the standard Mafia defense. Often claim to have not know the exact details of a particular crime. Which might be true, but you are part of a criminal organization you are still complicit in the crimes it commits even if you try to insulate yourself from the details.

If the Taliban is here to stay, then Afghanistan cannot be saved. The Taliban will always make Afghanistan suffer, so anything short of complete elimination of even the concept of the Taliban is just addressing the symptoms, not the disease.

And as the complete elimination of the concept of the Taliban is not really viable within the constraints of what we are morally willing to do, then perhaps Afghanistan cannot really be saved.

It is not inherently cruel to say something is beyond saving, so that the cost of trying to save it is no longer viable.

Still the Taliban might not be here to stay. The future is not written. But they might be. Regardless as Afghanistan’s only hope is the destruction of the Taliban, so the best thing for Afghanistan is still to work towards that end.

Efforts to undermine the Taliban are ultimately efforts to help the people of Afghanistan long term. Working with the Taliban might provide some short term relief but only at the cost of worsening the long term pain.

[Nociav]

The Taliban did absolutely know Al Qaeda was launching attacks from Afghanistan and fully tolerated, even supporting them doing so. Not knowing the details of every attack they were helping support does not make them not complicit.

This is the standard Mafia defense. Often claim to have not know the exact details of a particular crime. Which might be true, but you are part of a criminal organization you are still complicit in the crimes it commits even if you try to insulate yourself from the details.

Show me proof that the Taliban knew Bin Laden was going to launch attacks. Then show it to Robert Grenier, ex-CIA chief of the Islamabad station during the Taliban's reign. If your only proof is "we know they did it but we have no proof" then your not convincing me. The Taliban and Bin Laden did not get along. Bin Laden never shared details with the Taliban.

If the Taliban is here to stay, then Afghanistan cannot be saved. The Taliban will always make Afghanistan suffer, so anything short of complete elimination of even the concept of the Taliban is just addressing the symptoms, not the disease.

And as the complete elimination of the concept of the Taliban is not really viable within the constraints of what we are morally willing to do, then perhaps Afghanistan cannot really be saved.

It is not inherently cruel to say something is beyond saving, so that the cost of trying to save it is no longer viable.

Still the Taliban might not be here to stay. The future is not written. But they might be. Regardless as Afghanistan’s only hope is the destruction of the Taliban, so the best thing for Afghanistan is still to work towards that end.

Efforts to undermine the Taliban are ultimately efforts to help the people of Afghanistan long term. Working with the Taliban might provide some short term relief but only at the cost of worsening the long term pain.

The Taliban are here to stay. Not working with them won't change their behaviour. It only allows Governments to thump their chests about how moral they are to not work with terrorists whilst ignoring the 40 million starving Afghans. Undermining them won't work short of supporting ISIS.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/11/bid ... ans-assets

"The Taliban are cruel, brutal, and misogynist, but why should the Afghan people be punished for that?"

That's the bottom line. Answer it.

"I don't work with terrorists lest they become stronger therefore let the 40 million Afghans starve." Your moral absolutism is ridiculous.

[Novus America]

The Taliban did absolutely know Al Qaeda was launching attacks from Afghanistan and fully tolerated, even supporting them doing so. Not knowing the details of every attack they were helping support does not make them not complicit.

This is the standard Mafia defense. Often claim to have not know the exact details of a particular crime. Which might be true, but you are part of a criminal organization you are still complicit in the crimes it commits even if you try to insulate yourself from the details.

Show me proof that the Taliban knew Bin Laden was going to launch attacks. Then show it to Robert Grenier, ex-CIA chief of the Islamabad station during the Taliban's reign. If your only proof is "we know they did it but we have no proof" then your not convincing me. The Taliban and Bin Laden did not get along. Bin Laden never shared details with the Taliban.

If the Taliban is here to stay, then Afghanistan cannot be saved. The Taliban will always make Afghanistan suffer, so anything short of complete elimination of even the concept of the Taliban is just addressing the symptoms, not the disease.

And as the complete elimination of the concept of the Taliban is not really viable within the constraints of what we are morally willing to do, then perhaps Afghanistan cannot really be saved.

It is not inherently cruel to say something is beyond saving, so that the cost of trying to save it is no longer viable.

Still the Taliban might not be here to stay. The future is not written. But they might be. Regardless as Afghanistan’s only hope is the destruction of the Taliban, so the best thing for Afghanistan is still to work towards that end.

Efforts to undermine the Taliban are ultimately efforts to help the people of Afghanistan long term. Working with the Taliban might provide some short term relief but only at the cost of worsening the long term pain.

The Taliban are here to stay. Not working with them won't change their behaviour. It only allows Governments to thump their chests about how moral they are to not work with terrorists whilst ignoring the 40 million starving Afghans. Undermining them won't work short of supporting ISIS.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/11/bid ... ans-assets

"The Taliban are cruel, brutal, and misogynist, but why should the Afghan people be punished for that?"

That's the bottom line. Answer it.

"I don't work with terrorists lest they become stronger therefore let the 40 million Afghans starve." Your moral absolutism is ridiculous.

Al Qaeda had launched multiple attacks before. Again it does not matter if they new the details of 9-11. They sheltered, supported and then refused to surrender Al Qaeda. That logic could only apply if 9-11 was the first attack Al Qaeda had launched.

Because supporting a cruel, misogynist and brutal regime only means more cruelty, misogyny and brutally. You are only making the long term problems worse.
The people of Afghanistan are going to suffer if we help the Taliban. The will suffer if we do not.

We could made temporarily alleviate short term suffering to create more problems long term. That is the answer. If the Taliban are here to stay, the situation is hopeless for the people of Afghanistan regardless of what we do.

And the Taliban might not be here to stay. You do not know the further. And we make the future. They have only existed about 30 years. They might not be around in the next 30z. So we should do what we can to increase the chances they will not be. That is the best we can do for the people of Afghanistan,

The Taliban ARE THE PROBLEM, so working with them cannot fix the problem.

[Nociav]

Al Qaeda had launched multiple attacks before. Again it does not matter if they new the details of 9-11. They sheltered, supported and then refused to surrender Al Qaeda. That logic could only apply if 9-11 was the first attack Al Qaeda had launched.

They did not support Al Qaeda. The Taliban were not friendly with Al Qaeda. Mullah Omar personally disliked Bin Laden. The Taliban never knew anything about Al Qaeda's plans. They did not refuse to hand over Bin Laden either. They refused to hand him over to a western Christian country without evidence. The will never hand over a Muslim to a Christian or atheist country without evidence prior. The requirement of evidence is literally Shariah law. This is why the Taliban gave their alternative of an international Islamic court to try Bin Laden instead but we can't have Muslims try Bin Laden, that would be a farce of justice.

Because supporting a cruel, misogynist and brutal regime only means more cruelty, misogyny and brutally. You are only making the long term problems worse.
The people of Afghanistan are going to suffer if we help the Taliban. The will suffer if we do not.

We could made temporarily alleviate short term suffering to create more problems long term. That is the answer. If the Taliban are here to stay, the situation is hopeless for the people of Afghanistan regardless of what we do.

And the Taliban might not be here to stay. You do not know the further. And we make the future. They have only existed about 30 years. They might not be around in the next 30z. So we should do what we can to increase the chances they will not be. That is the best we can do for the people of Afghanistan,

The Taliban ARE THE PROBLEM, so working with them cannot fix the problem.

The Taliban are here to stay. They are not going anywhere. It's not worth the time to discuss it.

The Taliban are not going to change their behaviour with economic strangulation of the entire country. Regular Afghans suffer, the Taliban can shrug it off. Mass starvation is mass starvation. It's regular Afghans that will starve to death. But it's all okay because we didn't work with the Taliban. Feel free to look at this and smile because at least we didn't work with the Taliban:

https://twitter.com/HashteSubhDaily/sta ... 6611430412

[Insaanistan]

ISI Chief Supposedly Met in Turkey With Afghan Warlords who Fled the Country After the Takeover of Kabul, Later With Massoud in Another Location

[Novus America]

Al Qaeda had launched multiple attacks before. Again it does not matter if they new the details of 9-11. They sheltered, supported and then refused to surrender Al Qaeda. That logic could only apply if 9-11 was the first attack Al Qaeda had launched.

They did not support Al Qaeda. The Taliban were not friendly with Al Qaeda. Mullah Omar personally disliked Bin Laden. The Taliban never knew anything about Al Qaeda's plans. They did not refuse to hand over Bin Laden either. They refused to hand him over to a western Christian country without evidence. The will never hand over a Muslim to a Christian or atheist country without evidence prior. The requirement of evidence is literally Shariah law. This is why the Taliban gave their alternative of an international Islamic court to try Bin Laden instead but we can't have Muslims try Bin Laden, that would be a farce of justice.

Because supporting a cruel, misogynist and brutal regime only means more cruelty, misogyny and brutally. You are only making the long term problems worse.
The people of Afghanistan are going to suffer if we help the Taliban. The will suffer if we do not.

We could made temporarily alleviate short term suffering to create more problems long term. That is the answer. If the Taliban are here to stay, the situation is hopeless for the people of Afghanistan regardless of what we do.

And the Taliban might not be here to stay. You do not know the further. And we make the future. They have only existed about 30 years. They might not be around in the next 30z. So we should do what we can to increase the chances they will not be. That is the best we can do for the people of Afghanistan,

The Taliban ARE THE PROBLEM, so working with them cannot fix the problem.

The Taliban are here to stay. They are not going anywhere. It's not worth the time to discuss it.

The Taliban are not going to change their behaviour with economic strangulation of the entire country. Regular Afghans suffer, the Taliban can shrug off sanctions. Mass starvation is mass starvation. It's regular Afghans that will starve to death. But it's all okay because we didn't work with the Taliban. Feel free to look at this and smile because at least we didn't work with the Taliban:

https://twitter.com/HashteSubhDaily/sta ... 6611430412

If they did not support them then why did they allow them to use Afghanistan with impunity? That alone is support.
They obviously knew Al Qaeda launched attacks, as they kept doing so.

And there was plenty of evidence, yet they would rather fight than just turn him over. So they got it. The brought the war on themselves. They could have driven out Al Qaeda earlier or turned them over. They did not.
They fought to protect Al Qaeda.

No, it is worth discussing. People said the Soviet Union was here to say. Where is it now? Regimes change, especially in Afghanistan. There is very little reason to believe the Taliban regime is going to last forever.

Yes people are starving because of the Taliban. Yes this is sad. However helping the Taliban is not going to fix the problem.

The people are going to starve regardless. And we cannot afford to keep subsidizing the Taliban regime forever.
Which again is not even beneficial long term. Looking at that only makes me despise the Taliban more.
The Taliban are the problem. That child suffers because the Taliban would rather he suffer. We cannot save that child short of evacuating them from Taliban rule.. The Taliban could but will not.

And nothing can be fixed because as you acknowledge they will not change. Regardless of what we do.

Our only option would be to remove the Taliban or remove a the people who are not Taliban from Afghanistan to other countries.

People will starve as long as the Taliban are in power. Throwing some more food at the Taliban that they will just steal or distribute only to their supporters cannot change that.

We should therefore try to work around the Taliban the best we can. But there are also other people starving elsewhere we can more easily help. It is not our duty or capability to save the whole world.

[Nociav]

If they did not support them then why did they allow them to use Afghanistan with impunity? That alone is support.
They obviously knew Al Qaeda launched attacks, as they kept doing so.

And there was plenty of evidence, yet they would rather fight than just turn him over. So they got it. The brought the war on themselves. They could have driven out Al Qaeda earlier or turned them over. They did not.
They fought to protect Al Qaeda.

They didn't. Actually do some reading before you post. Mullah Omar did his best to stay on the good side of his version of Islam and still rid himself of Bin Laden. The Taliban never granted Bin Laden permission to attack anyone. The Taliban even conspired with the CIA to get him kidnapped and killed in 1999. The plan only fell through because the FBI wanted him arrested and tried, not dead.

They set out terms for Bin Laden's handover. Bush rejected it. Either you can provide evidence as Shariah demanded, or have him tried in an international Islamic court. The Taliban didn't fight for Bin Laden.

No, it is worth discussing. People said the Soviet Union was here to say. Where is it now? Regimes change, especially in Afghanistan. There is very little reason to believe the Taliban regime is going to last forever.

No it isn't. I'm not arguing this.

Yes people are starving because of the Taliban. Yes this is sad. However helping the Taliban is not going to fix the problem.

The people are going to starve regardless. And we cannot afford to keep subsidizing the Taliban regime forever.
Which again is not even beneficial long term. Looking at that only makes me despise the Taliban more.
The Taliban are the problem.

And nothing can be fixed because as you acknowledge they will not change. Regardless of what we do.

No, people are not starving because of the Taliban. They are starving because of drought, the cessation of aid, and economic sanctions that sent the economy into free fall. You don't get to turn off the spigot of aid to punish the adversary and then ignore the dire effects of it. There is something that can be done. Working with the Taliban.

When your falling foul of both Crisis Group and HRW, then you know your on the wrong side.

https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south- ... atastrophe

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/11/bid ... ans-assets

[Novus America]

If they did not support them then why did they allow them to use Afghanistan with impunity? That alone is support.
They obviously knew Al Qaeda launched attacks, as they kept doing so.

And there was plenty of evidence, yet they would rather fight than just turn him over. So they got it. The brought the war on themselves. They could have driven out Al Qaeda earlier or turned them over. They did not.
They fought to protect Al Qaeda.

They didn't. Actually do some reading before you post. Mullah Omar did his best to stay on the good side of his version of Islam and still rid himself of Bin Laden. The Taliban never granted Bin Laden permission to attack anyone. The Taliban even conspired with the CIA to get him kidnapped and killed in 1999. The plan only fell through because the FBI wanted him arrested and tried, not dead.

They set out terms for Bin Laden's handover. Bush rejected it. Either you can provide evidence as Shariah demanded, or have him tried in an international Islamic court. The Taliban didn't fight for Bin Laden.

No, it is worth discussing. People said the Soviet Union was here to say. Where is it now? Regimes change, especially in Afghanistan. There is very little reason to believe the Taliban regime is going to last forever.

No it isn't. I'm not arguing this.

Yes people are starving because of the Taliban. Yes this is sad. However helping the Taliban is not going to fix the problem.

The people are going to starve regardless. And we cannot afford to keep subsidizing the Taliban regime forever.
Which again is not even beneficial long term. Looking at that only makes me despise the Taliban more.
The Taliban are the problem.

And nothing can be fixed because as you acknowledge they will not change. Regardless of what we do.

No, people are not starving because of the Taliban. They are starving because of drought, the cessation of aid, and economic sanctions that sent the economy into free fall. You don't get to turn off the spigot of aid to punish the adversary and then ignore the dire effects of it. There is something that can be done. Working with the Taliban.

When your falling foul of both Crisis Group and HRW, then you know your on the wrong side.

https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south- ... atastrophe

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/11/bid ... ans-assets

Their terms were unreasonable and they new we had to reject their terms. The simple fact is they did allow the Al Qaeda to operate in Afghanistan The could have driven out Al Qaeda but did not.

An thus we had to go in an take out Al Qaeda. The simple thing is they would rather fight the US than Al Qaeda when they should have removed Al Qaeda which is what any reasonable government would have done. You concede however the Taliban are not driven by reason but by religious fanaticism.

No, the Taliban overthrowing the legal recognized government was the cause. The Taliban should not have done that and doing so would destroy the Afghan economy. They simply did mot care. In the process they destroyed much of the bureaucracy too. Had the Taliban disbanded things would be better. The Taliban are the but for cause.

They are not reasonable. As you admit. They would rather Afghanistan starve than make changes to help Afghanistan.

We cannot work with groups like that, who would exploit and abuse whatever we gave them.

I disagree with those groups who are well intentioned but also naive and assume aid is infinite.

Short term aid will not fix the long term problems either. And we cannot afford to subsidize it forever especially when the regime in power refuses to compromise.

Not everyone can be saved. So you have to make hard choices. And the hard choice here is to refuse to work with the Taliban. And try to work around them, And hope yet people eventually chose to destroy them.

[Nociav]

Their terms were unreasonable and they new we had to reject their terms. The simple fact is they did allow the Al Qaeda to operate in Afghanistan The could have driven out Al Qaeda but did not.

An thus we had to go in an take out Al Qaeda. The simple thing is they would rather fight the US than Al Qaeda when they should have removed Al Qaeda which is what any reasonable government would have done. You concede however the Taliban are not driven by reason but by religious fanaticism.

If Islam demanding evidence is unacceptable then how is it any more acceptable when the west demands evidence before it surrenders one of their citizens? When Islam does it its bad but when the west does it it's okay? The west could either give the Taliban evidence or take Bin Laden to an international Islamic court (that wouldn't even involve the Taliban). Both of these were reasonable options. Either the only diplomacy you know is gunboat or the only thing you want is war.

Mullah Omar set up a committee with Saudi Arabia to hand Bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia because Bin Laden was getting out of control. Saudi Arabia didn't take Bin Laden because it couldn't swallow its pride after Mullah Omar shouted the Saudi intelligence chief out of his office for attempting bluff his way into getting Bin Laden. The Taliban didn't want Bin Laden and they did try to get rid of him. No Islamic country wanted him and no western country would provide evidence for his guilt before they took him in. Covert actions to kill him fell through because of the FBI.

No, the Taliban overthrowing the legal recognized government was the cause. The Taliban should not have done that and doing so would destroy the Afghan economy. They simply did mot care. In the process they destroyed much of the bureaucracy too. Had the Taliban disbanded things would be better. The Taliban are the but for cause.

They are not reasonable. As you admit. They would rather Afghanistan starve than make changes to help Afghanistan.

We cannot work with groups like that, who would exploit and abuse whatever we gave them.

I disagree with those groups who are well intentioned but also naive and assume aid is infinite.

Short term aid will not fix the long term problems either. And we cannot afford to subsidize it forever especially when the regime in power refuses to compromise.

Not everyone can be saved. So you have to make hard choices. And the hard choice here is to refuse to work with the Taliban. And try to work around them, And hope yet people eventually chose to destroy them.

It was a western choice to shut off the spigot of aid. It was a western choice to keep sanctions that applied to the Taliban insurgency to now apply to the Taliban government. It was a western choice to keep things the way they are even after humanitarian groups warned that things were going to get worse.The entire economy came tumbling because 40% of it, aid money, vanished over night. None of this would have happened had the west listened to humanitarian groups and resumed aid, released assets, and worked with the Taliban to strengthen public institutions. This is the long term solution:

https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south- ... atastrophe

Either Afghans starve under a Taliban that doesn't compromise or they don't starve under a Taliban that refuses to compromise. This isn't a difficult choice unless 40 million Afghans are worthless because they were born in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

If the Taliban didn’t want Afghanistan to starve, then they shouldn’t have overthrown the government.

The human cost is regrettable, but under no circumstance should we ever concede to hostage-takers. All such concessions do is simply teach other potential rogue actors that taking the welfare of people hostage is in fact how you get ahead in life. This is the whole North Korea situation all over again.

If the Taliban wants access to the institutions of liberal democratic countries, then they can play ball with liberal democracy. Until then, well, so it goes.

[Insaanistan]

NRF Commemorate Anniversary of Soviet Withdrawal

US Special Envoy on Afghanistan Maintains the US Doesn’t Support the NRF, Urges Int’l Community to do the Same

[Insaanistan]

Residents of Northern Afghanistan Allege The Taliban are Committing Genocide Against Them, Movements of Kabuli Tajiks Heavily Restricted