Jump to content


Fuck Afghanistan and fuck Karzai


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,111 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 23 October 2011 - 06:04 PM

I heard this on the BBC on the way to work this am. WTFO????

KABUL, Afghanistan Just days after he stood with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and accused Pakistan of harboring the enemies of his government, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan said his country would support Pakistan if it ever went to war with the United States.
http://www.nytimes.c...ct-with-us.html


Well, that's nice to know, you fucking douchebag. Especially considering that Pakistan has been THE MAJOR source of their problems since day one of the soviet era and probably well before. Certainly Paki has been the biggest de-stabilizing factor in Afghanistan since 9/11.

So yeah, what exactly DID all our blood and treasure buy us? It certainly wasn't any sense of gratitude or loyalty. If Obama had any sense, he'd be out of there so fast Karzai wouldn't even be able to shit himself fast enough. Fuck him and fuck that tribal, backward, stoneage POS patch of dirt.

[/rant off]

#2 barleymalt

barleymalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,218 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 23 October 2011 - 06:32 PM

Karzai is a corrupt, incompetent sleazebag and a back stabbing cock nozzle. WTF are we sacrificing our troops' lives for to keep him in power for?.

#3 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,671 posts

Posted 23 October 2011 - 06:38 PM

I heard this on the BBC on the way to work this am. WTFO????

KABUL, Afghanistan Just days after he stood with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and accused Pakistan of harboring the enemies of his government, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan said his country would support Pakistan if it ever went to war with the United States.
http://www.nytimes.c...ct-with-us.html


Well, that's nice to know, you fucking douchebag. Especially considering that Pakistan has been THE MAJOR source of their problems since day one of the soviet era and probably well before. Certainly Paki has been the biggest de-stabilizing factor in Afghanistan since 9/11.

So yeah, what exactly DID all our blood and treasure buy us? It certainly wasn't any sense of gratitude or loyalty. If Obama had any sense, he'd be out of there so fast Karzai wouldn't even be able to shit himself fast enough. Fuck him and fuck that tribal, backward, stoneage POS patch of dirt.

[/rant off]

Whack-a-mole is the answer. Our politicians are not capable of nationbuilding.

#4 elle

elle

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,196 posts
  • Location:new orleans, louisiana

Posted 23 October 2011 - 06:47 PM

why should they be, we have no business nation building anyway.

#5 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 23 October 2011 - 06:49 PM

Fuck him and fuck that tribal, backward, stoneage POS patch of dirt.

[/rant off]


There is a interesting video online of Karzai sitting with Hillary last week and laughing about Hermann Cain and others who know nothing about the geography of the world.

It can sometimes make one wonder just WHO is backward. At least Karzai knows who and what is where.....

That said, I'm with you. Obama took out Bin Laden for a tiny bit of scratch. We could have done that in the first place. Perhaps your beef lies with the 85% of Americans who cheered the first bombs dropping?

Once you create shitworld, it's hard to get out without stinking bad.

#6 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,032 posts

Posted 23 October 2011 - 07:58 PM

He's pleading for his life. They caught one of his bodyguards in a plot to kill him early this month.

http://www.jihadwatc...gainst-him.html

I suspect it was one of those "gotcha" questions, or the anticipation of one, or perhaps after a bong hit. The main point appeared to be that he would go to war with Pakistan against India, at least to the Indian press. America was just an add on, as we are clearly becoming more allied with India and less with Pakistan.

http://timesofindia....ow/10467672.cms

He has allied himself with India, and that is unacceptable to Pakistan. He knows they can kill him if they keep at it, more likely than not.

We are leaving. He has to try to stay alive in there. Fuck him? No problem with that, but I think he's pretty well fucked already.

#7 dreadom

dreadom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,167 posts
  • Location:Gumbaynggir

Posted 23 October 2011 - 07:59 PM

why should they be, we have no business nation building anyway.

+1

#8 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,510 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 23 October 2011 - 08:40 PM

We are leaving. He has to try to stay alive in there. Fuck him? No problem with that, but I think he's pretty well fucked already.


Bingo, in that part of the world, staying alive isn't just a political thing.

#9 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,606 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 23 October 2011 - 09:56 PM

Well, that's nice to know, you fucking douchebag. Especially considering that Pakistan has been THE MAJOR source of their problems since day one of the soviet era and probably well before. Certainly Paki has been the biggest de-stabilizing factor in Afghanistan since 9/11.

So yeah, what exactly DID all our blood and treasure buy us? It certainly wasn't any sense of gratitude or loyalty. If Obama had any sense, he'd be out of there so fast Karzai wouldn't even be able to shit himself fast enough. Fuck him and fuck that tribal, backward, stoneage POS patch of dirt.

[/rant off]

lol.

Of course you have been wasting your time. You are a moron for believing your government's/military's positive spin.
A few of them may smile nicely while the cameras are around, but they are all just waiting for you to leave and quit shooting the countryside up. They are plenty good at that themselves, and need no extra help.

The whole enterprise has been obvious fail ever since the US decided to do more than bomb a few terrorist training facilities and gtfo.

#10 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,606 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 23 October 2011 - 09:58 PM

... but I think he's pretty well fucked already.

American stooge regimes never last long once support is removed. Sometimes, like in Tunisia and Egypt, even US support isn't enough.

#11 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 23 October 2011 - 10:31 PM

Of course you have been wasting your time. You are a moron for believing your government's/military's positive spin.
A few of them may smile nicely while the cameras are around, but they are all just waiting for you to leave and quit shooting the countryside up. They are plenty good at that themselves, and need no extra help.

The whole enterprise has been obvious fail ever since the US decided to do more than bomb a few terrorist training facilities and gtfo.


I never believed the shit for one second.

I learned that lesson when I was 16 - the government lies...early and often. I was revolted as they trotted out all the lies and PR (the Pat TIllman one was particularly disgusting) to buttress the case for war. Even time I hear "listen to the generals" or "support the troops", I see more liberty down the drain.....since those are code words for "pay no attention to what is really occurring".

If only the right, who now questions everything Obama does, would have asked a question or two of their own neocons.

#12 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,969 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 24 October 2011 - 12:50 AM

Listen to what Mark K had to say - and try to understand the precarious nature of EVERYTHING over there, coupled w/the myriad of conflicting intents being described in a variety of media outlets. I'm not givin' Karzai a pass, but, in his shoes, w/Pakistani based insurgents waitin' to pounce - I'd probably be making political statements that got me the most mileage w/whoever was gonna be left.

What's this got to do w/what we've done - not a whole lot. What're WE gonna do once we're gone? Probably not a whole lot, 'til we go back for round 2.

Interesting to see the comments from the weasels who want to trust every despot out there to not hurt us as long as we don't call them on their bad behavior - some of you are truly naive to the evil that flourishes in some parts of the world.

#13 Joker

Joker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 965 posts

Posted 24 October 2011 - 12:54 AM

blame Dumbfuckistan.

#14 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,606 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 24 October 2011 - 01:18 AM

Listen to what Mark K had to say - and try to understand the precarious nature of EVERYTHING over there, coupled w/the myriad of conflicting intents being described in a variety of media outlets. I'm not givin' Karzai a pass, but, in his shoes, w/Pakistani based insurgents waitin' to pounce - I'd probably be making political statements that got me the most mileage w/whoever was gonna be left.

It doesn't matter what he says. He's toast. He knows it.

What's this got to do w/what we've done - not a whole lot. What're WE gonna do once we're gone? Probably not a whole lot, 'til we go back for round 2.

Interesting to see the comments from the weasels who want to trust every despot out there to not hurt us as long as we don't call them on their bad behavior - some of you are truly naive to the evil that flourishes in some parts of the world.

You are truely naive if you believe that the US is capable of restraining said evilness by visiting death and destruction upon entire countries.

#15 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 24 October 2011 - 02:19 AM

What's this got to do w/what we've done - not a whole lot. What're WE gonna do once we're gone? Probably not a whole lot, 'til we go back for round 2.



Hmm...what's it got to so with what we do and have done?

How about this? We go to war against Iraq for virtually nothing, threaten regularly to go to war against Iran for the same....EXCUSE the Saudis for financing evil and 9/11 and everything else...THEN, we make excuses for Karzai saying he would fight against us????

Whatever happened to "moral authority" ?? Perhaps you are too ingrained to see. But I can assure you - from the outside, it looks worse than bad. It looks like it is against EVERYTHING our founders and constitution...as well as many of the other important documents of the last 800 years...stand for.


If, however, you truly believe we are simply Mad Max, then your views make perfect sense.

#16 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,111 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 24 October 2011 - 05:35 AM

Listen to what Mark K had to say - and try to understand the precarious nature of EVERYTHING over there, coupled w/the myriad of conflicting intents being described in a variety of media outlets. I'm not givin' Karzai a pass, but, in his shoes, w/Pakistani based insurgents waitin' to pounce - I'd probably be making political statements that got me the most mileage w/whoever was gonna be left.

What's this got to do w/what we've done - not a whole lot. What're WE gonna do once we're gone? Probably not a whole lot, 'til we go back for round 2.

Interesting to see the comments from the weasels who want to trust every despot out there to not hurt us as long as we don't call them on their bad behavior - some of you are truly naive to the evil that flourishes in some parts of the world.


Look, I know its total political posturing on Karzai's part based on survival. Part of my rant was directed at his words, but the reality is that after 10 years - the Afghans (outside of Kabul maybe) don't want our help. They're a tribal society and don't want our money and roads and schools. SO fuck 'em.

For a pretty good look at the mentality in the countryside - go watch the movie "Restrepo". The contempt for the American's who were giving their lives to protect these villages from the Taliban was obvious.

#17 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,032 posts

Posted 24 October 2011 - 06:05 AM

The CNN special "Living with the Taliban", the Norwegian guy who lived with them, must be watched along with Restrepo. They happened to be the guys on the other side of the hill behind that position. Next valley over.

#18 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,111 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 24 October 2011 - 08:43 AM

The CNN special "Living with the Taliban", the Norwegian guy who lived with them, must be watched along with Restrepo. They happened to be the guys on the other side of the hill behind that position. Next valley over.

I will definitely look for it. Any idea if its still on CNN's page?

#19 cmilliken

cmilliken

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,077 posts

Posted 24 October 2011 - 10:31 AM

In the average democracy, the citizenry are required to 'authorize' either by supporting or at least capitulating the sending of forces to war. However, the average citizenry are not actually very interested in finding the deeper meanings behind such actions so the Government broadly and the media specifically are prone to simplify and dumb down the conflict. Eventually, everything is painted as black and white because it's easy and lets face it, people are generally lazy and can get away with such simplified assertions mostof the time.



Afghanistanis one of those places where it's very hard to broad brush everything. Given the number of foreign forces that have ground themselves to dust against that part of the world, we're just par for course.



#20 mr_fabulous

mr_fabulous

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,984 posts

Posted 24 October 2011 - 12:26 PM

Our experience with Pakistan should teach us about that part of the world; The people in power over there really don't give a shit about their people or their country. Rather, they use their authority to promote war, while speaking out of both sides of their mouths, taking all available cash, and wrapping it all up in the guise of nationalism and religious xenophobia, while protecting the sources of their income.


There's a lesson in there for those who deign to take a second to reflect...

#21 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 24 October 2011 - 02:12 PM

The people in power over there really don't give a shit about their people or their country. Rather, they use their authority to promote war, while speaking out of both sides of their mouths, taking all available cash, and wrapping it all up in the guise of nationalism and religious xenophobia, while protecting the sources of their income.


There's a lesson in there for those who deign to take a second to reflect...


Sounds like a description of modern America, when you think of it, eh???

Tell me which parts don't fit.





#22 mad

mad

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,505 posts

Posted 24 October 2011 - 03:13 PM


The people in power over there really don't give a shit about their people or their country. Rather, they use their authority to promote war, while speaking out of both sides of their mouths, taking all available cash, and wrapping it all up in the guise of nationalism and religious xenophobia, while protecting the sources of their income.


There's a lesson in there for those who deign to take a second to reflect...


Sounds like a description of modern America most western governments, when you think of it, eh???

Tell me which parts don't fit.

Fixed

#23 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,111 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 24 October 2011 - 03:37 PM



The people in power over there really don't give a shit about their people or their country. Rather, they use their authority to promote war, while speaking out of both sides of their mouths, taking all available cash, and wrapping it all up in the guise of nationalism and religious xenophobia, while protecting the sources of their income.


There's a lesson in there for those who deign to take a second to reflect...


Sounds like a description of modern America most western governments, when you think of it, eh???

Tell me which parts don't fit.

Fixed

Yeah, but the pakis are a lot more subtle about it than we are.

#24 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,510 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 24 October 2011 - 05:36 PM

The CNN special "Living with the Taliban", the Norwegian guy who lived with them, must be watched along with Restrepo. They happened to be the guys on the other side of the hill behind that position. Next valley over.



A one-half hour long production in two parts:
Here: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=dkk5HMwCCQE

and here: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=On4OE9Ikb4U

#25 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,111 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 24 October 2011 - 05:48 PM


The CNN special "Living with the Taliban", the Norwegian guy who lived with them, must be watched along with Restrepo. They happened to be the guys on the other side of the hill behind that position. Next valley over.



A one-half hour long production in two parts:
Here: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=dkk5HMwCCQE

and here: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=On4OE9Ikb4U

Cool, thanks!

#26 Jambalaya

Jambalaya

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,267 posts
  • Location:UK, South East

Posted 26 October 2011 - 12:10 PM

Karzai is a corrupt, incompetent sleazebag and a back stabbing cock nozzle. WTF are we sacrificing our troops' lives for to keep him in power for?.

That may be true but he was the best applicant for the job. It's him or the Taliban.

#27 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,606 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 26 October 2011 - 12:33 PM


Karzai is a corrupt, incompetent sleazebag and a back stabbing cock nozzle. WTF are we sacrificing our troops' lives for to keep him in power for?.

That may be true but he was the best applicant for the job. It's him or the Taliban.

If you paid attention to the news you'd probably notice that it's going to end up being the Taliban again anyway.

And what was wrong with the Taliban anyway? Sure, they didn't go to your church, but after an exhaustive civil war process they were selected by the people.
If the government had been permitted to run for a while and sort out some of the mayhem left over from 15 years of war, I'm sure there would have been an organic and natural progression towards a more familiar style of government.

These things don't happen overnight, and bombing them some more doesn't help.

If you guys had gone and got some evidence rather than going all rambo, you would have saved yourself a decade:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1539468.stm

#28 Jambalaya

Jambalaya

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,267 posts
  • Location:UK, South East

Posted 26 October 2011 - 01:29 PM

Battlecheese WTF are you talking about ?

The Taliban were happy to shelter Bin_Laden and Al-Q. The only remotely positive thing they did was stamp out the growing of poppies for the drug trade.

#29 mr_fabulous

mr_fabulous

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,984 posts

Posted 26 October 2011 - 02:15 PM



Karzai is a corrupt, incompetent sleazebag and a back stabbing cock nozzle. WTF are we sacrificing our troops' lives for to keep him in power for?.

That may be true but he was the best applicant for the job. It's him or the Taliban.

If you paid attention to the news you'd probably notice that it's going to end up being the Taliban again anyway.

And what was wrong with the Taliban anyway? Sure, they didn't go to your church, but after an exhaustive civil war process they were selected by the people.
If the government had been permitted to run for a while and sort out some of the mayhem left over from 15 years of war, I'm sure there would have been an organic and natural progression towards a more familiar style of government.

These things don't happen overnight, and bombing them some more doesn't help.

If you guys had gone and got some evidence rather than going all rambo, you would have saved yourself a decade:
http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/1539468.stm

...except for that World Trade Center thingy and a few other attacks..., outright intimidation, subjugation of women and outright bloody cowardly murder...If there was a button to make them all disappear, there would be people crushed in the scrum.

Religious law always leads to the basest examples of human exploitation.



Keerysssst. You're officially on the douche list.

#30 mr_fabulous

mr_fabulous

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,984 posts

Posted 26 October 2011 - 02:29 PM

Battlecheese WTF are you talking about ?

The Taliban were happy to shelter Bin_Laden and Al-Q. The only remotely positive thing they did was stamp out the growing of poppies for the drug trade.


Record crops last year. The Taliban and the junkies are all happy.The world should just write off that entire part of the world as a hopelessly corrupt and morally bankrupt lost cause. Want to help? Help those that want to get out of there...

#31 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,606 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 26 October 2011 - 11:03 PM

Battlecheese WTF are you talking about ?

The Taliban were happy to shelter Bin_Laden and Al-Q. The only remotely positive thing they did was stamp out the growing of poppies for the drug trade.

As the BBC report I linked showed, they were also quite happy to extradite him to the US if any evidence linking him to the bombing was provided.

#32 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,606 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 26 October 2011 - 11:05 PM


Battlecheese WTF are you talking about ?

The Taliban were happy to shelter Bin_Laden and Al-Q. The only remotely positive thing they did was stamp out the growing of poppies for the drug trade.


Record crops last year. The Taliban and the junkies are all happy.The world should just write off that entire part of the world as a hopelessly corrupt and morally bankrupt lost cause. Want to help? Help those that want to get out of there...

The Taliban are religious freaks who do not approve of the Poppy trade.
These poppies you bitch about are being grown by your allies. As you observe, the poppy trade has been booming since the US intervention disrupted the Taliban.

#33 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,606 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 26 October 2011 - 11:26 PM

...except for that World Trade Center thingy and a few other attacks..., outright intimidation, subjugation of women and outright bloody cowardly murder...If there was a button to make them all disappear, there would be people crushed in the scrum.

Religious law always leads to the basest examples of human exploitation.

Keerysssst. You're officially on the douche list.

Countries which are warzones tend to get fairly oppressive leadership until everything settles down a bit. Especially if they are fragmented tribal areas to begin with.
Expect something similar in Libya.

The Taliban were not responsible for any of those attacks. As already discussed, they were happy to work with the US on extradition provided any evidence could be provided.

Your comic-book world must be nice with it's clear black/white goodies/baddies delineations.
Unfortunately in real life there's a lot of grey around.

#34 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,032 posts

Posted 26 October 2011 - 11:32 PM




Karzai is a corrupt, incompetent sleazebag and a back stabbing cock nozzle. WTF are we sacrificing our troops' lives for to keep him in power for?.

That may be true but he was the best applicant for the job. It's him or the Taliban.

If you paid attention to the news you'd probably notice that it's going to end up being the Taliban again anyway.

And what was wrong with the Taliban anyway? Sure, they didn't go to your church, but after an exhaustive civil war process they were selected by the people.
If the government had been permitted to run for a while and sort out some of the mayhem left over from 15 years of war, I'm sure there would have been an organic and natural progression towards a more familiar style of government.

These things don't happen overnight, and bombing them some more doesn't help.

If you guys had gone and got some evidence rather than going all rambo, you would have saved yourself a decade:
http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/1539468.stm

...except for that World Trade Center thingy and a few other attacks..., outright intimidation, subjugation of women and outright bloody cowardly murder...If there was a button to make them all disappear, there would be people crushed in the scrum.

Religious law always leads to the basest examples of human exploitation.



Keerysssst. You're officially on the douche list.


It's probably not correct to conflate the Taliban with Al Qaeda. There has never been any evidence that he let Mullah Omar in on the 9/11 plot, or any of the other ones, and much anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

They brought law and order, and that was the reason they prevailed in the Afghanistan of the 90's, which was just plain nuts. So bad, many people were willing to support them, some may even have known how puritan the brand of Islam would be. That, with Paki funding and arms, and religious organization giving them cadres of young, committed men, made them all but unstoppable despite their low numbers.

They, like most puritanical orders, were inward focused. Much more interested in fencing the rest of the world out than evangelically spreading a "message". Contact with the unclean outsiders they tended to avoid whenever possible.

It's entirely possible some combination of disbelieving, about what the consequences would be (they did think of themselves as tough guys) or in Bin Ladens guilt, and adherence with Sharia laws of hospitality, shaped their decision making process.

They ran to Palistan, but being a refugee can really suck. They eventually decided to take a shot at going back home, and since we had done squat-all about anticipating and preventing that, it was pretty easy for them to move back in with family among the Pashtun mountain tribes.

http://www.thedailyb...-own-words.html

#35 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 26 October 2011 - 11:39 PM

Hate to say I told you so........

But I did at least 4 years ago.

It's a shame so many American soldiers gave their lives for nothing

#36 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,969 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 27 October 2011 - 01:35 PM


Battlecheese WTF are you talking about ?

The Taliban were happy to shelter Bin_Laden and Al-Q. The only remotely positive thing they did was stamp out the growing of poppies for the drug trade.

As the BBC report I linked showed, they were also quite happy to extradite him to the US if any evidence linking him to the bombing was provided.


Cite?

#37 mr_fabulous

mr_fabulous

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,984 posts

Posted 27 October 2011 - 02:24 PM


...except for that World Trade Center thingy and a few other attacks..., outright intimidation, subjugation of women and outright bloody cowardly murder...If there was a button to make them all disappear, there would be people crushed in the scrum.

Religious law always leads to the basest examples of human exploitation.

Keerysssst. You're officially on the douche list.

Countries which are warzones tend to get fairly oppressive leadership until everything settles down a bit. Especially if they are fragmented tribal areas to begin with.
Expect something similar in Libya.

The Taliban were not responsible for any of those attacks. As already discussed, they were happy to work with the US on extradition provided any evidence could be provided.

Your comic-book world must be nice with it's clear black/white goodies/baddies delineations.
Unfortunately in real life there's a lot of grey around.


Al Qeda was in bed with the Taliban with imported fighters from Arab countries throughout Asia.

Toward the end of the mess, an estimated 40-50000 force fighting on the side of the Taliban, but only about 10-15000 were Afghans. In all its grace, the Waziri Taliban specifically targeted persons of the Shia religious or Hazara ethnic background. UN officials are on record that there had been "15 massacres" between 1996 and 2001 committed by the Taliban, in addition to the well documented loss of historic treasures in the name of Sharia and Fundamentalism, and the known oppression of women. Ahmed Shah Massoud was a Taliban moderate, reached out to the West, and after numerous assassination attempts, they killed him. So much for Muslim revisionist history.

I find it interesting that the religious/revisionist Fundie nuts are all consistent throughout the world; no matter the religion, all at once predictably declare their righteousness, innocence and underscore their religious writing excerpts to justify crimes carried out against their fellow man, always expounding upon its peaceful tenets as some warm blanketing dominion...while at the same time, they advocate killing people. Damn any Fundamentalist ideologies that place pretense before human reason and compromise.

I hope the Taliban and Karzai, and Pakistan form a nice alliance. Those snakes deserve each other.

#38 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,032 posts

Posted 27 October 2011 - 08:47 PM



...except for that World Trade Center thingy and a few other attacks..., outright intimidation, subjugation of women and outright bloody cowardly murder...If there was a button to make them all disappear, there would be people crushed in the scrum.

Religious law always leads to the basest examples of human exploitation.

Keerysssst. You're officially on the douche list.

Countries which are warzones tend to get fairly oppressive leadership until everything settles down a bit. Especially if they are fragmented tribal areas to begin with.
Expect something similar in Libya.

The Taliban were not responsible for any of those attacks. As already discussed, they were happy to work with the US on extradition provided any evidence could be provided.

Your comic-book world must be nice with it's clear black/white goodies/baddies delineations.
Unfortunately in real life there's a lot of grey around.


Al Qeda was in bed with the Taliban with imported fighters from Arab countries throughout Asia.

Toward the end of the mess, an estimated 40-50000 force fighting on the side of the Taliban, but only about 10-15000 were Afghans. In all its grace, the Waziri Taliban specifically targeted persons of the Shia religious or Hazara ethnic background. UN officials are on record that there had been "15 massacres" between 1996 and 2001 committed by the Taliban, in addition to the well documented loss of historic treasures in the name of Sharia and Fundamentalism, and the known oppression of women. Ahmed Shah Massoud was a Taliban moderate, reached out to the West, and after numerous assassination attempts, they killed him. So much for Muslim revisionist history.

I find it interesting that the religious/revisionist Fundie nuts are all consistent throughout the world; no matter the religion, all at once predictably declare their righteousness, innocence and underscore their religious writing excerpts to justify crimes carried out against their fellow man, always expounding upon its peaceful tenets as some warm blanketing dominion...while at the same time, they advocate killing people. Damn any Fundamentalist ideologies that place pretense before human reason and compromise.

I hope the Taliban and Karzai, and Pakistan form a nice alliance. Those snakes deserve each other.


Massoud was never a Talibani. A very pious man, but "Taliban" is not a sect of Islam. Religion played a minimal part compared to ethnic and tribal links for him and others like him. He was a Tajik. The Taliban was (and is) nearly entirely of the of the eastern and southern branches of the Pashtun.

#39 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,606 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 28 October 2011 - 12:52 AM



Battlecheese WTF are you talking about ?
The Taliban were happy to shelter Bin_Laden and Al-Q. The only remotely positive thing they did was stamp out the growing of poppies for the drug trade.

As the BBC report I linked showed, they were also quite happy to extradite him to the US if any evidence linking him to the bombing was provided.

Cite?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1539468.stm

Too cool to scroll up 1 page?

#40 Jambalaya

Jambalaya

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,267 posts
  • Location:UK, South East

Posted 28 October 2011 - 09:03 AM

The Afgans have never been conquered, they are not about to be by ISAF or whatever the US/UK/etc force is called.

The invasion of Afganistan was totally justified based on their support of Al-Q. The very big mistake has been to loose focus on that job in the pursuit of personal agendas against Hussain and Iraq (and of course the oil).

To me the headline of the thread shows the frustration with the situation in Afganistan. What were you expecting, them to be grateful we invaded their country ? There has never been the political will to win that war and without it we should never have gotten embroiled in it.

#41 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,969 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 28 October 2011 - 03:46 PM

The Afgans have never been conquered, they are not about to be by ISAF or whatever the US/UK/etc force is called.

The invasion of Afganistan was totally justified based on their support of Al-Q. The very big mistake has been to loose focus on that job in the pursuit of personal agendas against Hussain and Iraq (and of course the oil).

To me the headline of the thread shows the frustration with the situation in Afganistan. What were you expecting, them to be grateful we invaded their country ? There has never been the political will to win that war and without it we should never have gotten embroiled in it.


Actually - at the onset of our entry into Afghanistan - locals in opposition to the Taliban were indeed very thankful for our assistance. Read the book "The Horse Soldiers" .

#42 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,111 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 28 October 2011 - 11:22 PM

Al Qeda was in bed with the Taliban with imported fighters from Arab countries throughout Asia.

Toward the end of the mess, an estimated 40-50000 force fighting on the side of the Taliban, but only about 10-15000 were Afghans. In all its grace, the Waziri Taliban specifically targeted persons of the Shia religious or Hazara ethnic background. UN officials are on record that there had been "15 massacres" between 1996 and 2001 committed by the Taliban, in addition to the well documented loss of historic treasures in the name of Sharia and Fundamentalism, and the known oppression of women. Ahmed Shah Massoud was a Taliban moderate, reached out to the West, and after numerous assassination attempts, they killed him. So much for Muslim revisionist history.

I find it interesting that the religious/revisionist Fundie nuts are all consistent throughout the world; no matter the religion, all at once predictably declare their righteousness, innocence and underscore their religious writing excerpts to justify crimes carried out against their fellow man, always expounding upon its peaceful tenets as some warm blanketing dominion...while at the same time, they advocate killing people. Damn any Fundamentalist ideologies that place pretense before human reason and compromise.

I hope the Taliban and Karzai, and Pakistan form a nice alliance. Those snakes deserve each other.


Where do you get your information from.... Comic books???? Massoud was actively at war with the Taliban. That was where the "northern alliance" came from..... They were actively at war with the Taliban who were trying to take over the Panjir valley as well as the rest of Northern Afghanistan who were holdouts to being assimilAted by the Taliban. Massed was the head of the Northern Alliance, a loose confederation of tribal warlords who were resisting the Taliban advance. Massoud was killed by AQ spies who posed as a news crew and blew him up during a mock interview. He was assassinated two days before the 9/11 attacks, and it's been postulated that he was killed by AQ to appease the Taliban to continue helping OBL knowing that retaliation by the US was imminent.

Read "First in" and "Ghost Wars" to educate yourself on the real history of Afghanistan during that time.

#43 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,032 posts

Posted 28 October 2011 - 11:53 PM

As an add-on to the topic, here is the first section of the BBC special on Pakistan's double game.



There are 5 more 10 minute Youtube segments, making the first hour of the series. The second hour should be out next week.

People are talking openly now about what went down in there, and is key to understanding Karzai's desperation to cut some kind of deal with Pakistan.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users