Afghan Conflict: Russian Political Leader Meets With Massoud

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

It's also worth mentioning the republic was pretty inherently flawed at its core. If we were going to commit to fully invading Afghanistan and building a new government we should have brought the king back, even into the 2000s the monarchy enjoyed support amongst a wide number of factions the country.

Also maybe stop pushing the idea of a neoliberal Afghan government...

[El Lazaro]

The Taliban is the governing force of Afghanistan, whether anyone says anything to the contrary or not.

I'm not in favor of them, but it's in everyone's best interests to work with them.

Diplomatic dialogue with the Taliban:
“Please stop sawing off the legs of infants whose first words aren’t “Death to all unbelievers.”
“No.”
“Would you consider it if we gave you enough money to revive Afghanistan’s economy?”
“No.”
“Can you explain why sawing off the legs of infants is so important to you?”
“No.”

Unless you’re a neighboring state with security concerns regarding the Afghan border, there really isn’t anything to talk to them about, much less recognize them for.

[Fahran]

It's also worth mentioning the republic was pretty inherently flawed at its core. If we were going to commit to fully invading Afghanistan and building a new government we should have brought the king back, even into the 2000s the monarchy enjoyed support amongst a wide number of factions the country.

Also maybe stop pushing the idea of a neoliberal Afghan government...

While we shouldn’t have imposed a republican and parliamentary form of government on Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic was hardly liberal in any genuine sense. It was just less theocratically deranged than the Taliban and abided some level of liberal derangement in non-government institutions - such as universities.

[Insaanistan]

The Taliban is the governing force of Afghanistan, whether anyone says anything to the contrary or not.

I'm not in favor of them, but it's in everyone's best interests to work with them.

Diplomatic dialogue with the Taliban:
“Please stop sawing off the legs of infants whose first words aren’t “Death to all unbelievers.”
“No.”
“Would you consider it if we gave you enough money to revive Afghanistan’s economy?”
“No.”
“Can you explain why sawing off the legs of infants is so important to you?”
“No.”

Unless you’re a neighboring state with security concerns regarding the Afghan border, there really isn’t anything to talk to them about, much less recognize them for.

I remind everyone that when the Taliban met representatives of the resistance (can’t remember if it was the Tehran meeting or the Moscow one), the NRF laid out their demands: freedom of press, speech and religion, inclusive government, respect for ethnic minorities, and equal treatment of women.

The Taliban response was to immediately leave the meeting.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Also maybe stop pushing the idea of a neoliberal Afghan government...

While we shouldn’t have imposed a republican and parliamentary form of government on Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic was hardly liberal in any genuine sense. It was just less theocratically deranged than the Taliban and abided some level of liberal derangement in non-government institutions - such as universities.

Wasn't talking about the basic form of government... Was talking about the absolutely ridiculous attempt to impose by force a Reaganist free market "paradise" in a society that leaned towards some degree of government control over the economy.
Which created a failed state where opium was grown outside police stations.

Lord in Heaven were people in charge this dogmatic and IQ-liberated?

Notes: We had all good intentions, reasonable level of ignorance, but we had plenty of hubris. Dogmatic adherence to free market principles led to our inability to adapt a nuanced, balanced approach to what Afghanistan needed. We upended everything: political, psychological, etc. People [Afghans] were in favor of a socialist or communist approach because that's how they remembered things the last time the system worked. There were debates in the cabinet about price controls. But the Afghans would say "yes" to everything in order to keep things moving.

My Gods...

Edit: we talked about this...

[Ard al Islam]

I don't even support the Taliban.

But cue the John Oliver-style "IT'S CURRENT YEAR" outrage.

We don’t even need to use that argument. We simply need to point out that Afghanistan’s situation has become objectively worse in almost every respect in the last couple years.

*Better

[El Lazaro]

We don’t even need to use that argument. We simply need to point out that Afghanistan’s situation has become objectively worse in almost every respect in the last couple years.

*Better

If you really hate Afghans, sure.

[Ard al Islam]

They're not at all. The Taliban want to appear legitimate and will work with others. I'm not talking about aiding them, because I disagree with that, but it's in everyones best interest to keep the peace.

Besides, no country in the world respects human decency, so that really shouldn't be an issue for anyone.

Correction, the Taliban leadership wants to appear legitimate while also being in charge of thousands of battle-hardened men who don’t care what the rest of the world (or frankly rest of the country) thinks about what they do because “They’re all kuffar, anyway!”

Based

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

We don’t even need to use that argument. We simply need to point out that Afghanistan’s situation has become objectively worse in almost every respect in the last couple years.

*Better

Cracking down on women's and gay rights, starving people to death an implementing a brutal torture regime is better?

[Ard al Islam]

It's also worth mentioning the republic was pretty inherently flawed at its core. If we were going to commit to fully invading Afghanistan and building a new government we should have brought the king back, even into the 2000s the monarchy enjoyed support amongst a wide number of factions the country.

Also maybe stop pushing the idea of a neoliberal Afghan government...

Precisely. Leave it to the Afghans to determine their own destiny.

[Ard al Islam]

Diplomatic dialogue with the Taliban:
“Please stop sawing off the legs of infants whose first words aren’t “Death to all unbelievers.”
“No.”
“Would you consider it if we gave you enough money to revive Afghanistan’s economy?”
“No.”
“Can you explain why sawing off the legs of infants is so important to you?”
“No.”

Unless you’re a neighboring state with security concerns regarding the Afghan border, there really isn’t anything to talk to them about, much less recognize them for.

I remind everyone that when the Taliban met representatives of the resistance (can’t remember if it was the Tehran meeting or the Moscow one), the NRF laid out their demands: freedom of press, speech and religion, inclusive government, respect for ethnic minorities, and equal treatment of women.

The Taliban response was to immediately leave the meeting.

Based

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

I remind everyone that when the Taliban met representatives of the resistance (can’t remember if it was the Tehran meeting or the Moscow one), the NRF laid out their demands: freedom of press, speech and religion, inclusive government, respect for ethnic minorities, and equal treatment of women.

The Taliban response was to immediately leave the meeting.

Based

Again. Cracking down on women's and gay rights, starving people to death an implementing a brutal torture regime is better? Was Hitler based?

[Ard al Islam]

*Better

Cracking down on women's and gay rights, starving people to death an implementing a brutal torture regime is better?

First of all, "women's rights" and "gay rights" are not even real. There is no such thing as "rights" for any specific group of people. There are only natural rights that every human enjoys. Second, the Taliban is actively working to improve the standards of living for the people of Afghanistan. Third, their regime is working to increase security and safety in Afghanistan.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

Cracking down on women's and gay rights, starving people to death an implementing a brutal torture regime is better?

First of all, "women's rights" and "gay rights" are not even real. Second, the Taliban is actively working to improve the standards of living for the people of Afghanistan. Third, their regime is working to increase security and safety in Afghanistan.

Woah woah woah. Whaddya mean "women's rights and gay rights are not real"? Why shouldn't women work, and why should gay people be stoned? And if the Taliban is doing so well, why are people starving everywhere? Admit it, you simply support their brand of Islamic supremacy and bigotry, which betrays the Quran.

And if we're talking about human rights; well just short of every Islamic nation breaches those, but Afghanistan especially

[Ard al Islam]

First of all, "women's rights" and "gay rights" are not even real. Second, the Taliban is actively working to improve the standards of living for the people of Afghanistan. Third, their regime is working to increase security and safety in Afghanistan.

Woah woah woah. Whaddya mean "women's rights and gay rights are not real"? Why shouldn't women work, and why should gay people be stoned? And if the Taliban is doing so well, why are people starving everywhere? Admit it, you simply support their brand of Islamic supremacy and bigotry, which betrays the Quran.

There is no such thing as "rights" for any specific group of people. There are only natural rights that every human enjoys.

Women don't need to work because that's what men are for. This has been the cultural consensus in Afghanistan for centuries and there is no reason for it to change.

People are starving because Afghanistan is poor, and in fact, the poverty goes back to the Republic period, to an even greater extant.

On the subject of gay people, I fully support the prescribed Islamic ruling for dealing with them.

I support the Taliban because they're the only actual Islamic government.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

Woah woah woah. Whaddya mean "women's rights and gay rights are not real"? Why shouldn't women work, and why should gay people be stoned? And if the Taliban is doing so well, why are people starving everywhere? Admit it, you simply support their brand of Islamic supremacy and bigotry, which betrays the Quran.

There is no such thing as "rights" for any specific group of people. There are only natural rights that every human enjoys.

Women don't need to work because that's what men are for. This has been the cultural consensus in Afghanistan for centuries and there is no reason for it to change.

People are starving because Afghanistan is poor, and in fact, the poverty goes back to the Republic period, to an even greater extant.

On the subject of gay people, I fully support the prescribed Islamic ruling for dealing with them.

I support the Taliban because they're the only actual Islamic government.

Oh this is just so funny. You support crackdowns on human rights, stoning gay people, banning women from working, and believe the Taliban is doing great whilst starving their people? Yes or No?

And you support the Taliban, because the Saudis weren't extreme enough for you? This is what people think of when they think "religious fundamentalist"

[Ard al Islam]

There is no such thing as "rights" for any specific group of people. There are only natural rights that every human enjoys.

Women don't need to work because that's what men are for. This has been the cultural consensus in Afghanistan for centuries and there is no reason for it to change.

People are starving because Afghanistan is poor, and in fact, the poverty goes back to the Republic period, to an even greater extant.

On the subject of gay people, I fully support the prescribed Islamic ruling for dealing with them.

I support the Taliban because they're the only actual Islamic government.

Oh this is just so funny. You support crackdowns on human rights, stoning gay people, banning women from working, and believe the Taliban is doing great whilst starving their people? Yes or No?

Literally yes, except the crackdown on human rights part, but who is the UN to come and say what rights people have anyway? I don't recognize the UN definition of human rights.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

Oh this is just so funny. You support crackdowns on human rights, stoning gay people, banning women from working, and believe the Taliban is doing great whilst starving their people? Yes or No?

Literally yes, except the crackdown on human rights part, but who is the UN to come and say what rights people have anyway? I don't recognize the UN definition of human rights.

So you support stoning homosexuals. And shooting people for disagreeing with the Taliban. Yes or No.

You've successfully gone further fundamentalist than Azad. Impressive. If you don't recognize the UDHR, then you believe in no human rights at all.

[Ard al Islam]

Literally yes, except the crackdown on human rights part, but who is the UN to come and say what rights people have anyway? I don't recognize the UN definition of human rights.

So you support stoning homosexuals. And shooting people for disagreeing with the Taliban. Yes or No.

Stoning homosexuals, yes. Shooting people for disagreeing with the Taliban? No.

[Port Caverton]

So you support stoning homosexuals. And shooting people for disagreeing with the Taliban. Yes or No.

Stoning homosexuals, yes. Shooting people for disagreeing with the Taliban? No.

Why do you support stoning homosexuals?

[Ard al Islam]

Stoning homosexuals, yes. Shooting people for disagreeing with the Taliban? No.

Why do you support stoning homosexuals?

Because, in the Islamic view, homosexuality is unnatural, and it's a perversion.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

Stoning homosexuals, yes. Shooting people for disagreeing with the Taliban? No.

Why do you support stoning homosexuals?

I remind him now, I am bisexual. According to him, I should be stoned to death. Is there any debate to be had?

[Port Caverton]

Why do you support stoning homosexuals?

Because, in the Islamic view, homosexuality is unnatural, and it's a perversion.

But do homosexual not have the right to live?

[Reploid Productions]

So you support stoning homosexuals. And shooting people for disagreeing with the Taliban. Yes or No.

Stoning homosexuals, yes. Shooting people for disagreeing with the Taliban? No.

*** WARNED for trolling *** You can disagree with homosexuality without calling for their murder. Do so.

[Ard al Islam]

Stoning homosexuals, yes. Shooting people for disagreeing with the Taliban? No.

*** WARNED for trolling *** You can disagree with homosexuality without calling for their murder. Do so.

I shall cease and desist.