The Afghan People Will Win - Part 18

120 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jingles

Quote:
Jack is volunteering to do just that. 

He's volunteering to stay longer.

In what world do you imagine Canada has any influence whatsoever in what happens in the occupation? Ask Webgear, and he'll tell you under whose command and pleasure he proudly serves (hint: their headquarters has five symmetrical sides). I know you can twist logic like a freeway overpass, but to conclude that Canada's subservient role to the US somehow acts to mitigate their actions is a real puzzler.

Name one instant, one time, one snippet where Canada criticized or second guesses their boss's actions or wishes, anywhere on the globe. Canada happily lets them torture a citizen for years, while all the toady opposition sits on their hands and wonders whether it'd be better to torture him here instead.

Canada's presence in Afghanistan does serve a purpose to the Americans: it gives them international cover, allowing them to maintain the fiction that this is a NATO operation. The Canadians also act like the low-rent colonial troops we've always been to greater power, gladly offering up our own citizens to further the empire's interests. 

Quote:
That is correct, the Taliban would never injure or kill anyone that opposes them, they have never killed police officers, government officials, tribal elders, political opponents, teachers, aid workers in the past.

I'm sure those same victims feel much better, much freer when they are murdered by your side instead.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Unionist wrote:

Quote:
"We condemn such a brutal act," Taliban spokesman Qari Yousuf Ahmadi told Reuters from an undisclosed location. "The Taliban wage Jihad (holy war) in order to free the people from the hands of occupiers. How can we kill them?"

In your heart of hearts do you really believe this; the Taliban had nothing to do with this attack, becouse they said so?

Unionist

No, I believe the Taliban lie all the time and the U.S., NATO, and Canadian military tell the truth. I believe the Taliban just like to slaughter civilians, while the westerners will do everything - even stepping in front of bullets themselves - in order to save innocent Afghans (especially women) from coming to any harm.

I also believe that most of the massacres in Vietnam attributed to the U.S. and its compliant Saigon regime were actually the handiwork of the Communist Viet Cong, who while masquerading as ordinary Vietnamese patriots, were actually paid agents of Moscow and Beijing and thought nothing of butchering their own in order to achieve their nefarious aims.

In general, I think the West - dedicated only to protecting itself against less developed cultures and spreading the ideals of liberty and democracy - gets a really bad rap.

Now tell me what your heart of hearts says to you.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

Thank you for your honest answer, it really shows your (internet?) character.

Me? I believe both sides lie and deceive to fit their agendas so you have to be careful what you believe... sometimes they are both lying about the same thing with one lying more than the other to cover their ass. In this particular case I'm thinking the Taliban are victims of their own success and now have to lie about it. This was no "oops we missed the real target"... that guy walked into that wedding party fully knowing full well the nature of the target. The Taliban may have fooled you but I doubt they fooled the Afghan people for the most part.

This by the way; the having to lie to cover ones fuck ups all the time is one of the reasons I support the US withdrawing from Afghanistan; it's time to go... I sorry if I'm not as fiery and emotional about this as some here are; that's not my style.

As I've said before I'm all for the US leaving Afghanistan. I just feel too creepy about "supporting" the Taliban like some of you guys do... but to each their own.

 

NDPP

Afghan President Has Lost Faith in US Ability to Defeat Taliban

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/09/afghanistan-taliban-us-hamid...

"Afghanistan's former head of intelligence says President Hamid Karzai is increasingly looking to Pakistan to end insurgency.."

Unionist

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

This by the way; the having to lie to cover ones fuck ups all the time is one of the reasons I support the US withdrawing from Afghanistan; it's time to go... I sorry if I'm not as fiery and emotional about this as some here are; that's not my style.

Yeah, well, that's the WRONG REASON for supporting U.S. withdrawal. The CORRECT REASON is that it's not their country. If the U.S. starting being very truthful about their fuck ups, you might decide they should stay, right? Views like yours - deciding whether an invasion is right or wrong based on your own "reasons" - deny the freedom of people everywhere in the world. Attitudes like yours are ready to be manipulated into defence of aggression, murder, and enslavement.

By the way, I don't support the Taliban. Nor do I believe their reports or denials. Your straw-man misreadings of my posts shows your character quite clearly.

Frmrsldr

The war in Afghanistan is illegal, immoral and unjust and cannot be supported on those grounds. We should never have waged war against the Afghans in the first place.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Unionist wrote:
By the way, I don't support the Taliban. Nor do I believe their reports or denials.

  

So I take it your real answer to my question in post #52 about post #47 is no.

Thank you for your time.

 

Fidel

Jingles wrote:

Quote:
Jack is volunteering to do just that. 

He's volunteering to stay longer.

In what world do you imagine Canada has any influence whatsoever in what happens in the occupation? Ask Webgear, and he'll tell you under whose command and pleasure he proudly serves (hint: their headquarters has five symmetrical sides). I know you can twist logic like a freeway overpass, but to conclude that Canada's subservient role to the US somehow acts to mitigate their actions is a real puzzler.

And it's for this reason Jack Layton must be lying when he speaks of working toward a UN-mediated loya jirga between the formerly US-backed Mujahideen and some Taliban in Karzai's puppet government, and the formerly US-backed Taliban who are, apparently, still on the US taxpayer's payroll.

It's a bullshit war. It's a most deniable "war on terror." And just like Canada has an obligation to the rest of the fucking world to help curb corporate America of its voracious appetite for under-priced fossil fuels, our stooges probably also have an obligation to the rest of the world to stop kow-towing to the phony bastards and work toward ending a phony phucking war on terror in not one but  two countries in Central Asia where tens of millions of deperately poor people have struggled so hard against a western world neoliberal siege machine for the last 30 years and counting. Democracy might not be an ideal our stooges in Ottawa today aspire to, but why should it mean the NDP are lying, too? There's no evidence for this claim.

Jingles wrote:
Name one instant, one time, one snippet where Canada criticized or second guesses their boss's actions or wishes, anywhere on the globe.

The NDP called for an investigation into the CIA's abduction of Haiti's first and last democratically elected leader in 2004. The Blocquistas contribution was to shout down the NDP in Parliament and inisist that the effective opposition cease referring to Aristide as removed in favour of the double speak, "departed." It's all there in Hansard. 

Quote:
That is correct, the Taliban would never injure or kill anyone that opposes them, they have never killed police officers, government officials, tribal elders, political opponents, teachers, aid workers in the past.

They kill because the CIA and their private enterprising  mercenaries are providing the incentives: cash and weapons and other aid delivered to the Taliban by Air America-2010. Also, Malalai Joya said two years ago that Afghan reports state that 85% of the drug shipments out of Afghanistan are flown by US aviators.

It's a bullshit war. 

Unionist

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Unionist wrote:
By the way, I don't support the Taliban. Nor do I believe their reports or denials.

 

So I take it your real answer to my question in post #52 about post #47 is no.

Thank you for your time.

 

And you believe this?

Quote:
NATO said no service members from the alliance were involved or operating in the area at the time of the explosion, and U.S. military spokesman Col. Wayne Shanks said the deaths were not the result of an airstrike.

If so, why?

And how about this, from the same article:

Quote:

Kandahar is key to the success of U.S. President Barack Obama's revamped war strategy, which focuses on turning local allegiances against the Taliban and toward the U.S.-backed central government.

No connection - right?

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/06/10/afghanistan-mcchrystal-nato.htm...

Fidel

The Taliban are the best enemies US taxpayer's money can buy. Gotta keep phony war and the drug running and weapons dealing and grinding poverty going for as long as possible. Like they say, evol triumphs where Canada's vicious toadies help it along.

 

Fidel

dubla posta

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Unionist wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Unionist wrote:
By the way, I don't support the Taliban. Nor do I believe their reports or denials.

 

So I take it your real answer to my question in post #52 about post #47 is no.

Thank you for your time.

 

And you believe this?

 

 

In this particular case yes... it was the Taliban or one of their allies.  

 

Unionist

Because...?

Who would benefit most from this incident, in your opinion? Or did that question figure in arriving at your conclusion?

And did you consider this:

Quote:
Kandahar is key to the success of U.S. President Barack Obama's revamped war strategy, which focuses on turning local allegiances against the Taliban and toward the U.S.-backed central government.

Why wouldn't the U.S. organize this atrocity?

Frmrsldr

Unionist wrote:

Because...?

Who would benefit most from this incident, in your opinion? Or did that question figure in arriving at your conclusion?

And did you consider this:

Quote:
Kandahar is key to the success of U.S. President Barack Obama's revamped war strategy, which focuses on turning local allegiances against the Taliban and toward the U.S.-backed central government.

Why wouldn't the U.S. organize this atrocity?

The Pentagon is doing all kinds of dirty and very nasty things in the 'Ghan that naturally, they don't want the American (or any) public to know about.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Unionist wrote:

Because...?
Who would benefit most from this incident, in your opinion? Or did that question figure in arriving at your conclusion?
And did you consider this:

Quote:
Kandahar is key to the success of U.S. President Barack Obama's revamped war strategy, which focuses on turning local allegiances against the Taliban and toward the U.S.-backed central government.

Why wouldn't the U.S. organize this atrocity?

From the article I posted:

Quote:
A Kandahar policeman said many of the guests had links to local police officials or a local militia, which was why it was likely targeted, although the Taliban denied responsibility.

Most of the victims were already on the governments side... if you reject this premise I imagine you could speculate this into a conspiracy or black flag operation.

As for the statement you keep referring to I have no problem with it. It's a true statement and, depending on how you want to interpret it, you could stretch it into the basis for a conspiracy theory or black flag operation (if you chose to go in that direction).  

 

Frmrsldr

Militia is said to be the target of Afghan wedding attack:

Alissa J. Rubin and Taimoor Shah wrote:

KABUL, Afghanistan - The groom and 17 of the guests at a rural Kandahar wedding party attacked by a suicide bomber on Wednesday night were members of an anti-Taliban guard organization encouraged initially by American Special Operations forces, and the bomber's goal appeared to be to undermine support for the group, elders and government officials in the area said Thursday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/world/asia/11afghan.html?partner=TOPIX...

There you go. It's the fault of those damn Yanquis. They're pulling the stunt that the British used during their Days of Empire: rule by pitting diffent groups against each other. The Yanquis did this in Iraq, now they're doing it in Afghanistan. All it will do is escalate the level of violence in Afghanistan and hatred toward U.S./NATO/ISAF troops.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Frmrsldr wrote:

Militia is said to be the target of Afghan wedding attack:

Alissa J. Rubin and Taimoor Shah wrote:

KABUL, Afghanistan - The groom and 17 of the guests at a rural Kandahar wedding party attacked by a suicide bomber on Wednesday night were members of an anti-Taliban guard organization encouraged initially by American Special Operations forces, and the bomber's goal appeared to be to undermine support for the group, elders and government officials in the area said Thursday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/world/asia/11afghan.html?partner=TOPIX...

There you go. It's the fault of those damn Yanquis. They're pulling the stunt that the British used during their Days of Empire: rule by pitting diffent groups against each other. The Yanquis did this in Iraq, now they're doing it in Afghanistan. All it will do is escalate the level of violence in Afghanistan and hatred toward U.S./NATO/ISAF troops.

It would appear the local elders would disagree... they say it's the Talibans fault. 

Quote:
Elders in the area said they believed that the suicide bomber's intent was to erode confidence in the group and to make the area more vulnerable to insurgent infiltration.

"The local militia were quite effective and helpful and were supported by the civilian population; they were not letting Taliban come to their area," said Haji Shah Aka, an elder from Nagahan.

Given their status in Afghan culture I'll take their word for it.

Unionist

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Most of the victims were already on the governments side... if you reject this premise I imagine you could speculate this into a conspiracy or black flag operation.

Ah, sorry - I didn't notice that. Well, if the attack was aimed at pro-government militia members, and if it truly was carried out by insurgents, then it takes on a rather different character than a random attack against civilians, doesn't it?

Quote:
As for the statement you keep referring to I have no problem with it. It's a true statement and, depending on how you want to interpret it, you could stretch it into the basis for a conspiracy theory or black flag operation (if you chose to go in that direction).

I never, once, said it was a "conspiracy" or "black flag" operation. I was the one who pointed out that there were two versions of whodunnit. I pointed out that I believe neither version. You said you believe the U.S.-NATO version. I questioned, and continue to question, why you would do such a thing.

 

Frmrsldr

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

Militia is said to be the target of Afghan wedding attack:

Alissa J. Rubin and Taimoor Shah wrote:

KABUL, Afghanistan - The groom and 17 of the guests at a rural Kandahar wedding party attacked by a suicide bomber on Wednesday night were members of an anti-Taliban guard organization encouraged initially by American Special Operations forces, and the bomber's goal appeared to be to undermine support for the group, elders and government officials in the area said Thursday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/world/asia/11afghan.html?partner=TOPIX...

There you go. It's the fault of those damn Yanquis. They're pulling the stunt that the British used during their Days of Empire: rule by pitting diffent groups against each other. The Yanquis did this in Iraq, now they're doing it in Afghanistan. All it will do is escalate the level of violence in Afghanistan and hatred toward U.S./NATO/ISAF troops.

It would appear the local elders would disagree... they say it's the Talibans fault. 

Quote:
Elders in the area said they believed that the suicide bomber's intent was to erode confidence in the group and to make the area more vulnerable to insurgent infiltration.

"The local militia were quite effective and helpful and were supported by the civilian population; they were not letting Taliban come to their area," said Haji Shah Aka, an elder from Nagahan.

Given their status in Afghan culture I'll take their word for it.

That doesn't contradict what I or the article I linked said.

The militia was created (and supposed to be armed) by U.S. Special Ops forces. It's purpose was to combat the Taliban. Naturally, the Taliban was going to strike against it. The suicide bomber was a Taliban actor.

I feel sorry for those tribal/militia elders/leaders. They decided to throw their lot in with the U.S. and against the Taliban. As the article later explains, the U.S. (military) has abandoned them to their dismal fate, just like the U.S. has done to the Laotian Hmung during the Vietnam War, the Kurds in the north and Shia in the south during the Gulf/Iraq War I in 1991 and the Sunni (militias) during (ongoing) Iraq war II.

SparkyOne

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/Taliban-execute-seven-year-old-Afghan-boy-accused-of-spying/articleshow/6028704.cms
 

Quote:

KABUL: Suspected Taliban militants executed a seven-year-old boy in southern Afghanistan after accusing him of spying for the government, a provincial official said Wednesday.

Is this true or is it more American properganda?

NDPP

War is hell and this one no less hellish. Troops out now.

Webgear

What is hell? If there is no god how can there be a hell? If there is a hell does that mean there is a heaven?

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Frmrsldr wrote:

That doesn't contradict what I or the article I linked said.

The militia was created (and supposed to be armed) by U.S. Special Ops forces. It's purpose was to combat the Taliban. Naturally, the Taliban was going to strike against it. The suicide bomber was a Taliban actor.

I feel sorry for those tribal/militia elders/leaders. They decided to throw their lot in with the U.S. and against the Taliban. As the article later explains, the U.S. (military) has abandoned them to their dismal fate, just like the U.S. has done to the Laotian Hmung during the Vietnam War, the Kurds in the north and Shia in the south during the Gulf/Iraq War I in 1991 and the Sunni (militias) during (ongoing) Iraq war II.

 I believe the main focus of the discussion between us was if the Taliban did it or not; or am I talking about two different things to two different people?... that is not contradicted neither. We can shift to the reason... or a solution; I'm game for that.

The hardcore Taliban who are doing this do not support the traditional Afghan tribal/elders leadership system: they move in, pretty much as political outsiders, and replace this traditional system with their own system of government. Don't forget; most adult Afghans remember the Taliban being in control... there is no doubt in their minds what is going to happen if they seize power again. Afghans are very religious, way more than most people, but they do not aspire to the hardcore interpretation of the Taliban for the most part. Afghans being Afghans, they are going to fight back against this intrusion, USA/government support or not. I think there's little doubt about that amongst us here.

Of all the 3 systems/sides fighting in this goat fuck I'd like to see those poor tribes and elders "win" the most. They more than the others are in my opinion the Afghan people the thread is titled about. The conundrum is for me anyways is if we just "cut and run" like many here seem to want we are pretty much throwing them to the Taliban [again]. A total hands off approach to Afghanistan would almost guarantee the Taliban the ability to dominate the new power vacuum not out of popularity from the population but just because they are so fucking brutal, have money and weapons support from various Pakistani/Islamic groups and won't give a fuck what world opinion, posters on Babble or anybody else for that matter thinks about their tactics or oppressive system. All they need is for the world to turn a blind eye for them [again] to overwhelm the people with their brutality like after the Soviet withdrawal. If the people are armed and determined to control their own destiny (as the elders said in that article) all they need is our support i.e. weapons and some training to keep the Taliban in check. The Taliban are not supermen, they have their weaknesses as much as anybody else.

So the question is how do we get out of Afghanistan without throwing the people to the wolves again and almost guaranteeing our return in 5 or 6 or 10 years? Cut and run is not an option I like, nor is it realistic. I say major army units out by 2011, Special Forces and training support (to include training in logistics) stays to assure the government and the people have the military strength to negotiate with the Taliban form a position of strength... and go from there. Seems to be the lesser of all the evils to me but still not a good one.

 

I'm more than willing to hear everyone's ideas. I've typed enough... Solutions? Ideas? Bitches? Smart Assed Remarks, Gripes? Go for it...

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

War is hell and this one no less hellish. Troops out now.

Yes, cut and run, that should help the Afghans. They can go from one hell to another... but it will at least be their own hell, one we can ignore from our computers in the USA and Canada.

Unionist

Hey Bec,

You seem a tad frustrated. Your life will be much calmer if you stop trying to figure out how Afghan society should organize itself. In fact, that's what Afghans want you to do - except those who suck at the teat of foreigners.

It's an easy choice. Leave them alone. Cut and run. You will be absolutely shocked and surprised how, once relieved of the kind help of well-meaning foreigners, they are able to actually feed and clothe themselves and carry on a semblance of civilization.

In solidarity,

Unionist

 

SparkyOne

If we weren't in Afghanistan than that 7 year old boy would still be alive. Maybe he would have found the cure for cancer but that will never happen since because of us he's dead.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Unionist wrote:

Hey Bec,

You seem a tad frustrated. Your life will be much calmer if you stop trying to figure out how Afghan society should organize itself. In fact, that's what Afghans want you to do - except those who suck at the teat of foreigners.

It's an easy choice. Leave them alone. Cut and run. You will be absolutely shocked and surprised how, once relieved of the kind help of well-meaning foreigners, they are able to actually feed and clothe themselves and carry on a semblance of civilization.

In solidarity,

Unionist

 

 

Good enough, if we do cut and run I can only hope your right... that is one thing I'd gladly be wrong about.

On a lighter note, yeah, I'll be getting rid of some of that frustration this weekend; I'm going to spend it hitting people with sticks and then drinking beer with them afterwards... and they get to hit me back; if they canWink

The most fun you can have with your cloths on if you ask me.

Have a good weekend.

Unionist

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

 

On a lighter note, yeah, I'll be getting rid of some of that frustration this weekend; I'm going to spend it hitting people with sticks and then drinking beer with them afterwards... and they get to hit me back; if they canWink

The most fun you can have with your cloths on if you ask me.

Have a good weekend.

Enjoy - and post photos!!

À tantôt.

Fidel

SparkyOne wrote:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/Taliban-execute-seven-year-old-Afghan-boy-accused-of-spying/articleshow/6028704.cms

 

Quote:

KABUL: Suspected Taliban militants executed a seven-year-old boy in southern Afghanistan after accusing him of spying for the government, a provincial official said Wednesday.

Is this true or is it more American properganda?

It's what they are trained to do since the 1980s and 1990s through today. Terrorizing and murdering women and children is also what US-trained battalions in Central America were trained to do in the recent past. Torture, rape and murder of women and children is an especially useful method of suppressing local populations. It tends to demoralize large segments of the population in preparing them to accept the inevitable. This is what US and Saudis have paid for and Pakistan's army intelligence have trained Taliban and other groups in Central Asia to perpetrate on civilian populations. It's what they do.

Sparky, this is a phony war with scumbags making money from weapons dealing, drug trafficking and scamming North American taxpayers, the pro-Mooj Northern alliance warlords in Karzai's regime and Taliban insurgent leaders included. There isn't much difference between the opposing sides who are all on the take and crooked and corrupt as the war is long. None of the principals in this phony war want it to end soon. Taliban recruits may desire a pay cheque and perhaps even to see the US and Canadian invaders pullout, but not necessarily so for the highest ranking Taliban who are becoming rich and powerful in the process.

Very many Afghans believe that this is a phony war. The two sides have been meeting regularly in swanky hotel rooms of Islamabad and Karachi over the last several years. I think they are collaborating to keep this phony war going. The outcome of battles are decided in these hotel room meetings before any blood is spilled. It's a bullshit war, Sparky. Both sides need dragging to the negotiating table and a deal hammered out to end the senseless violence perpetrated against innocent women and children for the sake of a buck. UN mediators are needed and not the Saudi and Pakistani ISI and CIA discussing things behind closed doors with their most excellent friends(BFF), the Taliban.

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

What is hell? If there is no god how can there be a hell? If there is a hell does that mean there is a heaven?

It's a man made hell. There's an old Dutch saying that goes, "If people were wise, this world would be paradise."

Frmrsldr

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

 I believe the main focus of the discussion between us was if the Taliban did it or not; or am I talking about two different things to two different people?... that is not contradicted neither. We can shift to the reason... or a solution; I'm game for that.

The hardcore Taliban who are doing this do not support the traditional Afghan tribal/elders leadership system: they move in, pretty much as political outsiders, and replace this traditional system with their own system of government. Don't forget; most adult Afghans remember the Taliban being in control... there is no doubt in their minds what is going to happen if they seize power again. Afghans are very religious, way more than most people, but they do not aspire to the hardcore interpretation of the Taliban for the most part. Afghans being Afghans, they are going to fight back against this intrusion, USA/government support or not. I think there's little doubt about that amongst us here.

Of all the 3 systems/sides fighting in this goat fuck I'd like to see those poor tribes and elders "win" the most. They more than the others are in my opinion the Afghan people the thread is titled about. The conundrum is for me anyways is if we just "cut and run" like many here seem to want we are pretty much throwing them to the Taliban [again]. A total hands off approach to Afghanistan would almost guarantee the Taliban the ability to dominate the new power vacuum not out of popularity from the population but just because they are so fucking brutal, have money and weapons support from various Pakistani/Islamic groups and won't give a fuck what world opinion, posters on Babble or anybody else for that matter thinks about their tactics or oppressive system. All they need is for the world to turn a blind eye for them [again] to overwhelm the people with their brutality like after the Soviet withdrawal. If the people are armed and determined to control their own destiny (as the elders said in that article) all they need is our support i.e. weapons and some training to keep the Taliban in check. The Taliban are not supermen, they have their weaknesses as much as anybody else.

So the question is how do we get out of Afghanistan without throwing the people to the wolves again and almost guaranteeing our return in 5 or 6 or 10 years? Cut and run is not an option I like, nor is it realistic. I say major army units out by 2011, Special Forces and training support (to include training in logistics) stays to assure the government and the people have the military strength to negotiate with the Taliban form a position of strength... and go from there. Seems to be the lesser of all the evils to me but still not a good one.

I'm more than willing to hear everyone's ideas. I've typed enough... Solutions? Ideas? Bitches? Smart Assed Remarks, Gripes? Go for it...

Malalai Joya put it best when she said that the Afghan people are fighting a number of enemies: foreign soldiers, (Karzai) government forces, the Taliban and Northern (Alliance)/drug criminal warlords. If the foreign forces leave, that will be one less set of forces the Afghan people will have to fight against.

Freedom and democracy is something the people have to want and fight for themselves. Freedom and democracy cannot be imported from abroad.

Thus, all foreign troops OUT of Afghanistan NOW. Who will ultimately triumph and what the next national government of Afghanistan will look like will be determined the way it often is in Afghanistan - by a feat of arms. May the strongest win.

The mooj, the Northern Alliance warlords, the Taliban and the current puppet Karzai regime were all created by the CIA and ISI. From 1996 to 2001, the Pentagon and Clinton and baby Bush White Houses and State Departments cynically supported and played the Northern Alliance warlords and Afghan Taliban government against each other, supporting the Taliban just enough to keep them in power. Up until the end of the week prior to 9/11, the Bush White House, Dick Cheney, Haliburton, Unocal and Enron were in negotiations with the Taliban government for TAP (the Trans Afghan Pipeline.)

By 9/11 (and many think it was an inside job, myself included), the Bush White House and the Pentagon decided to throw their support behind the Northern Alliance and use them as proxy gladios to overthrow the government because the Taliban rejected the offer for TAP and held out for more money.

When we pull out, there will be a civil war - the result of a power struggle for who will govern Afghanistan. Most likely it will be either the most powerful warlord, the Taliban or some other unsavory group.

If the Taliban, then we will have gone there, had our sons and daughters murdered there by our criminal governments, and things will revert back to the way they were antebellum - as if we were never there at all.

If this happens, it is because WE made (for the past 30 years) Afghanistan this way. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

From the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and even in the 1980s during the Soviet Afghan War, there was modernity in Afghanistan where freedom, democracy, equality for women and education for women and girls took place. This occurred in the big cities like Kabul, Kandahar, Mazar-e-Sharif, Herat, etc. This was not the case in the rural countryside.

Trying to ram these alien and foreign ideas down the throats of the rural Afghans isn't going to work. The reason why the Taliban are singling out these village elders is because they have painted themselves into a corner by allowing U.S. Spec. Ops. forces and the CIA to convince them to take up arms against the Taliban. They are in an unenviable position. Just like in Vietnam, they are murdered, intimidated and bribed by U.S. forces when they are most numerous in the area. They are murdered, intimidated and otherwise convinced to support the Taliban when they have the upper hand in the area.

When we are gone and should the Taliban form the next government, what will happen is the Taliban will govern from Kandahar (Kandahar may become the de facto capital), Kabul and the other large cities in the south. The people in the rural countryside will govern themselves. For centuries, Afghanistan has been very parochial and decentralized. The people in the countryside have always pretty much ruled themselves and adopted a "Fuck you" attitude toward the central government. Any outsiders come in and try to throw their weight around, they will be met with fierce armed resistance.

The people of the south are Pashtuns. The Taliban are Pashtuns. The Taliban have the 'home team' advantage. In the long run, who do think is going to win the 'hearts and minds' of the Afghan people - us or them?

I certainly ain't going to put any money on us, I tell you what.

 

 

Webgear

The Pashtun are not the Taliban.

A Talib is a religious student.

 The Pashtun confederation are broken down in two tribes, The Durrani and Ghilzai within this two tribes there are a number of clans and sub-clans.

Historical the Durrani have held the majority of the power, with in the Durrani Tribes,  Popalzai, Barakzai Achakzai and Alakozai clans have been the most powerful, and most of these clans really don't like each.

The Ghilzai are more likely to be Taliban than Durrani. Within the Ghilizai there are a number of small clans compared to the Durrani clans. These clans have been traditional against the Durrani clans.

Within Kandahar province there are over 16 major clan groups and about 45 sub-clan groups all are trying to their share of the wealth. There are also a number of Tajiks, Hazaars and other non-Pashtun tribes.

Your Special Forces arguments are also incorrect, tribal police forces were used well before the Soviets invaded.

Since 1945, there have been over 19 Pashtun uprisings in southern Afghanistan, targeting everyone from Kabul to Pakistan.

Kandahar city was never large it has only been since the Soviet invasion that the city has increased to the size it currently is.

Webgear

Politics and power in Kandahar

 

 

This is a very good recent document, rather lengthy but very detailed.

 

 

NDPP

Afghan Resistance Statement: The Subterfuge and the Jirga Fell Flat

http://www.alqimmah.net/showthread.php?p=34588

"The surrogate rulers of Kabul once again unscrupulously tried to exploit the good name and stature of Jirga for securing the interests and demands of of foreigners...It is a matter of great surprise that the Jirga on one hand, shows its gratitude to the so-called American assistance, but on the other hand overlooks the innocent blood, violation of values and desecration at the hands of the Americans.."

Unionist

Webgear wrote:

Politics and power in Kandahar

This is a very good recent document, rather lengthy but very detailed.

"We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives."

Oooo, I can hardly wait to read all 83 pages!

 

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

The Pashtun are not the Taliban.

I never said they were. I said the Taliban are Pashtun. An oversimplification, I know. If you like, I can make that statement more accurate by rewording it: Most Taliban are Pashtun.

Webgear wrote:

A Talib is a religious student.

I know.

Webgear wrote:

 The Pashtun confederation are broken down in two tribes, The Durrani and Ghilzai within this two tribes there are a number of clans and sub-clans.

Historical the Durrani have held the majority of the power, with in the Durrani Tribes,  Popalzai, Barakzai Achakzai and Alakozai clans have been the most powerful, and most of these clans really don't like each.

The Ghilzai are more likely to be Taliban than Durrani. Within the Ghilizai there are a number of small clans compared to the Durrani clans. These clans have been traditional against the Durrani clans.

Within Kandahar province there are over 16 major clan groups and about 45 sub-clan groups all are trying to their share of the wealth.

This is more information than most people know and why labelling Afghan insurgents as "Taliban" is inaccurate and misleading. That is why former Marine who served in Iraq and head of a PRT in Afghanistan Michael Hoh, said we fight one army of insurgents in one valley and an unrelated and unconnected army of insurgents in the valley over the next hill. Yet one more reason why fighting in Afghanistan is a hopeless endeavor.

Webgear wrote:

There are also a number of Tajiks, Hazaars and other non-Pashtun tribes.

There are also sizeable minorities of Pashtuns in the West among the Hazaaras and North East among the Uzbeks and Tajiks.

Webgear wrote:

Your Special Forces arguments are also incorrect, tribal police forces were used well before the Soviets invaded.

No they're not. Tribal police are one thing. Arming them, paying them Yanqui dollars and politicizing them by making them militias is something else. The Americans are doing it now, like they did in Iraq. The Russians tried it before and it failed. The Americans, in their arrogance didn't bother to consult with the Russians. It seems Americans have to learn for themselves through their own failures.

Webgear wrote:

Since 1945, there have been over 19 Pashtun uprisings in southern Afghanistan, targeting everyone from Kabul to Pakistan.

Prior to 1945, throughout the centuries there have been countless uprisings and armed conflicts/squabbles in Afghanistan, that is the nature of the 'country' (if you can call it that.) This is the environment we, Russia before that, Britain before them and a number of other foreign invaders before them, have walked into. Stirring up the Afghan hornets nest through invasion is not a particularly brilliant thing to do, but then I never accused George W. of being a genius. What, however accounts for the stupidity of the other countries, involved in our current misadventure?

Webgear wrote:

Kandahar city was never large it has only been since the Soviet invasion that the city has increased to the size it currently is.

Kandahar City may not have been very large (except for Kabul, none of the other "cities" are very large either), but it is an old and politically significant city. It was constructed under Alexander the Great and has always been important to southern Afghans.

Fidel

There's the Mullah Omar Taliban, and then there is the TTP. Most Pashtuns can't read their Korans, because they are printed in Arabic.

 Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan originated in US and Saudi funded madrassas mostly in 1980s-90s Pakistan, the Afghan Taliban's second home. Sibel Edmonds says that US money, and to the tune of billions of dollars, still goes toward funding thousands of madrassas in Central Asia today. The USA and Saudi royals are funding the creation of Taliban and other radical groups still today.

 

NDPP

Military Watershed: Longest War in US/Afghan History

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19685

"Despite the pledge by President Obama that after what was touted in advance as a victory in Kandahar and throughout the war wracked nation - to begin drawing down US and NATO troops in 2011, all indicators are that Western forces will remain in Afghanistan long after that. For longer than any foreign military power has ever stayed in the nation before, in a war that is already the longest in American history.."

one of these 'indicators' were the recent weasel words of the visiting MPs as Canadian advance guard of imperial interests - manufacturing consent for a longer stay under the guise of 'helping' and 'finishing the job'...

Fidel

Jingles wrote:
I'm sure those same victims feel much better, much freer when they are murdered by your side instead.

And which side would that be?

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19672]“We’re funding both sides of the war,”[/url] a NATO official in Kabul said

Webgear

Unionist wrote:

Webgear wrote:

Politics and power in Kandahar

This is a very good recent document, rather lengthy but very detailed.

"We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives."

Oooo, I can hardly wait to read all 83 pages!

 

Have you read the complete document yet?

Webgear

 

Frmsldr why do you over simplify everything?

Did you edit post 82 after you posted it? Because you did state the Taliban are Pashtun originally.

It would be more accurate to state US regular army units are supporting the tribal police system. Of course you know, the Brits and the Canadians (there are others also) are against the tribal police system.

Well considering the term Afghan was created in early 1800s, calling Afghans as Afghan would be the same as calling the First Nations here in North America as "Indians". Relating all past defeats against the whole "country of Afghanistan" would be a similar error because the country was never united.

Fidel

And they will never be united if the US Military, Saudis and Pakistani elite have their way.

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

Frmsldr why do you over simplify everything?

Did you edit post 82 after you posted it? Because you did state the Taliban are Pashtun originally.

It would be more accurate to state US regular army units are supporting the tribal police system. Of course you know, the Brits and the Canadians (there are others also) are against the tribal police system.

Well considering the term Afghan was created in early 1800s, calling Afghans as Afghan would be the same as calling the First Nations here in North America as "Indians". Relating all past defeats against the whole "country of Afghanistan" would be a similar error because the country was never united.

Webgear, why do you complicate things? How does it strengthen your argument? What is your argument?

This actually was the first time on babble I used the term "Taliban" in a collective sense to refer to those fighting against us. In the past and consequently, I will revert back to referring to them as insurgents, as we really don't know who the hell we are fighting against.

Ask the military, the government and the mainstream media why they almost always refer to insurgents as "Taliban".

No I didn't edit post 82. It said the "Taliban are Pashtuns". It still says that. You later reversed it to say "all Pashtun(s) are Taliban", which of course is not the same and is demonstrably false.

The U.S. military and the CIA are not "supporting" the tribal police system, they are corrupting/perverting it into militias. The reason, it is hoped, is that they will be far more effective in combating the insurgents than the ANP and will turn against fighting U.S./NATO/ISAF troops and fight amongst themselves (like what happened/is happening in Iraq).

The whole reason for this training of the ANA, militias and ANP bullshit is that the U.S./NATO/ISAF militaries are using this propaganda to sell their respective governments on the idea of escalating military engagement in Afghanistan, while the governments are using this propaganda to sell their publics on the idea that this is our "exit strategy": The more successful this strategy, the sooner our troops will be out.

So, let me see, because we mislabelled them monolithicly as "Indians", it therefore follows, both in logic and in fact, that we did not commit cultural genocide against our indigenous peoples.

Consequently, with Afghanistan, because the peoples in that region are ethnically and linguistically diverse and the "country" consists of lines arbitrarily drawn on a map by British geographers and chartographers in the 19th Century, "Afghanistan" is not, strictly speaking, a "country" really, but more of a "geographic expression".

It therefore follows, that our illegal attack, invasion, war, occupation of Afghanistan is a tabula raza and therefore will succeed, those other forces had not invaded "Afghanistan" because it didn't exist and they had not fought against "Afghans", because in reality, there are no such peoples as "Afghans". Nobody ever lost against the "Afghans" and no such "Graveyard of Empires" called "Afghanistan" exists.

That is the (absurd) logic of your argument.

I'm sorry, I missed it. When did "Afghanistan" become a country? When did the peoples living in that area become Afghans?

What is our strategy for victory - or is that a (classified) military secret?

What is the relevance of these obtuse cultural anthropology points and how do they relate to the morality of what we are doing in Afghanistan for the practical babbler of our modern world? Perhaps Webgear can enlighten us.

 

Webgear

Those complicated details and the obtuse cultural anthropology points are necessary for this complex topic.

Not discussing these points or taking them into consideration when creating your arguments does nothing for your assessment of the situation.

Given your ability to provide a large amount of incorrect and oversimplified facts does not help your arguments with a clear or correct conclusion.

You are trying to make two different arguments into single conclusion. You are constantly talking about how the war is immoral and how the war is being conducted. This are two separate discussions in my view.

 

You being a highly trained and experienced soldier must realize the strategy for winning the war depends on the level of command you are talking about (strategical, operational and tactical), and that all these war winning policies are public knowledge.

Unionist

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10300703.stm]British Rear Admiral admits mistake in 2006 Helmand mission - they didn't think they would have to fight against insurgents[/url]

The planning must have been headed up by the [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w]Ministry of Silly Walks[/url].

NDPP

Travers: PM Gags Staff to Curb Afghan Scandal

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/822500--travers...

"Parliament has a responibility as well as the authority to pursue the truth and Canadians need to hear directly what Soudas, Buckler and Natynczk did for their political masters, and why.."

Fidel

Webgear wrote:
Well considering the term Afghan was created in early 1800s, calling Afghans as Afghan would be the same as calling the First Nations here in North America as "Indians". Relating all past defeats against the whole "country of Afghanistan" would be a similar error because the country was never united.

It's a good point if only for the sake of discussion. It doesn't make the US-led military occupation of Afghanistan any less illegal. Many indigenous people of North America refer to themselves as Indians. The babbler/moderator  Makwa has said it's a term he is comfortable with. And I suppose the fact that European explorers couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag makes no difference to me either.

Pashtuns normally place importance on culture over religious values, including Taliban ideology. Culture is expressed through their cultural code known as Pashtunwali. With Taliban, it's the reverse. Pashtuns love dancing, for example. With the Taliban, the general rule is no dancing allowed.

The diff here is that the US taxpayer,Saudi princes, and Pakistan's army intelligence agency created the Taliban and supported a Taliban government from 1996 to 2001. Then 9/11 happened, and the US Military says it is there in Afghanistan to ferret out "Al-Qaeda", another US creation, and anyone aiding and abetting "Al-Qaeda." The Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden, and who was a guest of the Af-Pak Taliban at that point,  to Uncle Sam three times after 9/11. Why did the US reject these offers?

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

Those complicated details and the obtuse cultural anthropology points are necessary for this complex topic.

 

So, is it your one man crusade to convince us that Afghanistan is a legal, moral and just war by providing us with information about Afghanistan, its people and its culture - information we can find ourselves on the internet (CIA world factbook, wikipedia, google, ask.com, etc.) or by reading Encyclopaedia Britanica, National Geographic, Reader's Digest, etc. or watching PBS, etc.?

Keep studying Afghans and their culture, Webgear. The more you learn about Afghans, the less inclined you will be to kill 'em.

Where are we fighting this war, in Canada or Afghanistan? Afghans are killing Canadians because they are defending their crib. That's their excuse. What's yours?

THINK ABOUT THAT WHEN YOU KILL YOUR NEXT AFGHAN.

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

You being a highly trained and experienced soldier must realize the strategy for winning the war depends on the level of command you are talking about (strategical, operational and tactical), and that all these war winning policies are public knowledge.

No one in government and the military talks about "victory" any more. The military talks about an "acceptable" level (the exact amount is never specified) "pacification" and "stability". It talks about "clear, hold and build", training the ANA and ANP and an "exit strategy". This is military double speak for defeat.

Afghanistan is a war we cannot win, yet our soldiers are sent to die there and our political and military leaders don't have the guts or moral fiber to admit it.

Pages

Topic locked