Afghan puppets & their masters are going down

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

 there are very committed Afghan, Islamist patriots and they wouldn't willingly be part of such a thing.

 

Interesting, so these are the Afghans Unionist and you insist are not the Taliban and are going to "win" the war... Unlike fildel I believe the Taliban are very fucking for real and I seriously doubt the Taliban are going to let them "Afghan, Islamist patriots" run the country after the war.

Yes, the US created the Taliban. Hillary and a slew of US politicians admitted this on broadcast news in 2001. Yes, the Taliban are real. The CIA, Saudis and Brits worked diligently toward the Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan since the late 1980s through the 1990s and are still funding the madrassah system with US taxpayers money as well as Saudi royals.

Taliban ideology is relatively new to both those countries and tribal regions and are still not the purely ideologically driven Islamic states which Saudi Arabia and Iran are today. It was never the intention of the vast majority of people in any of Iran, Pakistan or Afghanistan to have religious mullahs running their countries - but it was orchestrated by western world leaders and central planners operating from the shadows since the 1950s.

al-Qaeda, OTOH, is not real.

Bec wrote:
They'll throw them under the bus just like the North Vietnamese did the Viet Cong. an enemy of my eniemy is me friend until he's my enemy, again.

VietNam was actually the first point of entry into Asia for the US Military since the WW II era. The US OSS-CIA and US Military dictatorship have been meddling in Asia for a long time. US central planners like Zbigniew Brzezinski are long time embeded bureaucrats and central planners for the US Military dictatorship and fancy themselves modern day British imperial strategists in the mold of Halford Mackinder who dream of conquering Asia and hacking off pieces of it for the salivating corporate jackals waiting in the wings.

NDPP

I don't think they are necessarily not Taliban but I do think there is variety and range within 'The Taliban' movement of which Afghan Islamist patriotism is a part. There will also be mujihideen fighting very much based on tribal affiliation and agendas as well. Foreigners or Wahabbi idealists might be another component.  I don't think it is as monolithic, controlled or controllable as some might. I believe that there is an Afghan resistance which includes 'the Taliban' but that is no longer the same formation as was used to fight the Soviets. That was then. This is now. I do think we have no business being there and should get the hell out asap. Like everyone I do the best with the iinformation I have.

NDPP

Fidel wrote:

 US Military dictatorship have been meddling in Asia for a long time. US central planners like Zbigniew Brzezinski are long time embeded bureaucrats and central planners for the US Military dictatorship and fancy themselves modern day British imperial strategists in the mold of Halford Mackinder who dream of conquering Asia and hacking off pieces of it for the salivating corporate jackals waiting in the wings.

NDPP

The last time I heard Zbig recently he was singing quite a different tune and urging a hasty exit from the 'graveyard of empire'at any price..

Fidel

Which Brzezinski? There are two of them advising the dictatorship today. They're a father and son team.

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

Unionist wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
[I'm not trolling here that's an honest question]

I never said you were a crook. Snarky perhaps, but not a crook.

NDPP

Fidel wrote:

Which Brzezinski? There are two of them advising the dictatorship today. They're a father and son team.

NDPP

this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfikRg2jE6o

What he said recently was basically the same rap but with somewhat more urgency

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

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

I don't think they are necessarily not Taliban but I do think there is variety and range within 'The Taliban' movement of which Afghan Islamist patriotism is a part. There will also be mujihideen fighting very much based on tribal affiliation and agendas as well. Foreigners or Wahabbi idealists might be another component.  I don't think it is as monolithic, controlled or controllable as some might. I believe that there is an Afghain resistance which includes 'the Taliban' but that is no longer the same formation as was used to fight the Soviets. That was then. This is now. I do think we have no business being there and should get the hell out asap. Like everyone I do the best with the iinformation I have.

 

 

I see, but in the end that non-monolithic entity is going to fight amongst it's self once "we" leave next year. Add to that the minority tribes that formed the old Northern Alliance would probably revert back to their old alliances and ways I don't see much of a victory for the Afghan people after we're gone; only more war.

 

Of course now, FOX has been playing up this "imminent" Pakistani Taliban attack BS here in the states all day long it makes me just shake my head. I'm glad I can brew my own beer... it makes drinking cheaper...LOL

 

Fidel

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
I see, but in the end that non-monolithic entity is going to fight amongst it's self once "we" leave next year. Add to that the minority tribes that formed the old Northern Alliance would probably revert back to their old alliances and ways I don't see much of a victory for the Afghan people after we're gone; only more war.

The Northern Alliance commanders are there in Karzai's puppet government today and propped up by the US Military. Karzai himself was pro Mujahideen in the 1980s. These are the freedom fighters who liberated Afghans from the evil Soviets and the PDPA government of Marxist Afghans. And they were Afghans and not Arab-Afghans and mercenaries from over 40 countries who murdered their countrymen and caused  millions of other Afghans to have to flee the country from 1992 to the late 1990s.

These are the people in Kabul who millions of Afghans loathe for being the corrupt US-backed despots, war criminals and drug trafficking gangsters in government that they are today. This is not a legit government.

NDPP

Troops 'Overwhelmed and Cannot Defeat Taliban'

http://www.theage.com.au/national/troops-overwhelmed-and-cannot-defeat-t...

"The Taliban have 'overwhelmed' foreign troops and cannot be defeated by military means, one of Australia's top combat soldiers has warned. His critical assessment comes in a report that contrasts sharply with the federal government claim of progress in Afghanistan.

While the key role of Australian troops is mentoring local forces, he says the Afghan army cannot operate independently, despite seven years of training, and the police are even worse.

The Afghan government is ineffective and has failed to deal with corruption, human rights abuses and a non-extistant justice system. Aid distribution, he says has been 'wasteful, ineffective and insufficient'.

Canada Out Now!

NDPP

Afghan Resistance Statement Regarding the Latest Organized Enemy Propaganda

http://shahamat.info/english/

"Once again, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan wants to remind the world and its countrymen [of] its stance on the issue. The IEA refutes outright these false claims - neither has it sent any delegations for talks and neither does it intend to negotiate at a time when the country is under occupation.."

 

Contrary to MSM reporting - NO NEGOTIATIONS IN PROGRESS

 

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

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Afghan Resistance Statement Regarding the Latest Organized Enemy Propaganda

http://shahamat.info/english/

"Once again, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan wants to remind the world and its countrymen [of] its stance on the issue. The IEA refutes outright these false claims - neither has it sent any delegations for talks and neither does it intend to negotiate at a time when the country is under occupation.."

 Contrary to MSM reporting - NO NEGOTIATIONS IN PROGRESS

 

Of course they are not in the negotiations. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is the deposed Taliban regime... not some mixed group of noble Afghan reistance fighters you keep insting they are.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Emirate_of_Afghanistan

Quote:
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was founded in 1996 when the Taliban began their rule of Afghanistan and ended with their fall from power in 2001.

I fail to see where the retun to power of the old Taliban regime would be a good thing.

George Victor

BDC, you'll need to watch for crosswinds in this water. Wink

Unionist

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

I fail to see where the retun to power of the old Taliban regime would be a good thing.

We all have failings in life. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

Just count the number of dead and mutiliated Afghans during the Talibans' reign and compare with the last 9 years of liberation by the peace- and justice-loving White Christian Crusading Saviours, and you will begin to understand.

 

NDPP

The point of the posting is that the MSM continues to lie about supposed talks between the Karzai mafia puppet regime/US/NATO and the Afghan Resistance/Taliban/IEA. This is clearly designed to blunt and deflect the massive disgust worldwide against this illegal invasion/occupation and the war-crimes in progress by suggesting a negotiation process leading to disengagement is underway. It isn't. This is a ruse to cover what is a renewed expanded offensive and more killing.

What you or I may think about the Afghan resistance or who should or should not be running things there may make for interesting discussion but ulitmately is the decision of the people of Afghanistan. To enable this to happen it is imperative to get NATO and our own Canadian FORCES out of there instead of supporting this dirty imperialist war.

NDPP

Base Desires in Afghanistan: Digging In For the Long Haul

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175310/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_base_des...

"Multiply this FOB [forward operating bases] by FOB, the length and breadth of Afghanistan, and you have a building program fit for a long war.."

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

Unionist wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

I fail to see where the retun to power of the old Taliban regime would be a good thing.

We all have failings in life. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

Just count the number of dead and mutiliated Afghans during the Talibans' reign and compare with the last 9 years of liberation by the peace- and justice-loving White Christian Crusading Saviours, and you will begin to understand.

 

Yeah I get the jest of what you're saying but one statistic, is just "doing business our way" casualties of the old Taliban regime and one is casualties while fighting an insurgency (a war)... which by the way one of the major combatants is that old regime that inflicts casualties on its population as a result of its day to day operation. Once the fighting stops the casulties stop as well, the other keeps on going... But maybe that's acceptable to you, I don't know.

The Taliban, and there are some that know this, are going to have to realize they are going to have to be a part of a government where they don't have 100% power over everybody. They had that for 5 years and blew it in the end when they let foreigners come in and set up camps to train people for operations outside Afghanistan (queue Fidel). Before they did that nobody, you and I included, could have cared less about Afghanistan, its people or the Taliban.

They are going to have to be elected into office not shoot their way back in. If they are so damn popular with the Afghan people as they claim they should have nothing to fear with elections; they'd win by a landslide... right?

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

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

What you or I may think about the Afghan resistance or who should or should not be running things there may make for interesting discussion but ulitmately is the decision of the people of Afghanistan. To enable this to happen it is imperative to get NATO and our own Canadian FORCES out of there instead of supporting this dirty imperialist war.

Flowery jargon on your part aside I can agree with that. By the way we are leaving; it starts for the main forces around August 2011.

George Victor

Wonder if part of the bargaining includes some sort of guarantee for schooling of girls and boys in the Muslim nirvana that will follow?

NDPP

I'm sure it's at the top of Karzai's priority list too. One has only to look at the 'liberation' of Iraq to know they can't do much worse. The 'talks' are a sham as are the empty promises of the west and NATO.

Sean in Ottawa

Unfortunately the Afghan people are losing as well. There is no victory here for anyone.

 

NDPP

Canadian Commander Backs Karzai - Taliban Talks

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/22/taliban-afghanistan.html

"We have been talking to the Taliban as countryman to countryman. Not as a regular official contact with the Taliban with a fixed address, but rather unofficial personal contacts have been going on.."

yeah right..

NDPP

omit

NDPP

[Taliban Steve] Harper Gives Cautious Nod to Talks with Taliban

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-give...

"Canada and its allies have always supported attempts at reconciliation.."

Talk of Afghan Peace Talks Legit or 'Information Operation'

http://warisacrime.org/content/talk-afghan-peace-talks-legit-or-informat...

"Despite news reports of high-level talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government, no significant peace negotiations are under way in Afghanistan, US officials and Afghanistan experts said Thursday. These same experts said the reports, which appeared in a numnber of US news outlets (and the GLob and CBC) could be part of a US 'information operation' to divide and weaken the Taliban leadership...

'This is a psychological operation, plain and simple,' said a US official with first hand knowledge of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's outreach efforts.."

NDPP

Salvaging the Afghan Mission

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Salvaging+Afghan+mission/3714888/story...

"Canada, it argues, already a leading champion of women in Afghanistan, is ideally placed to lead a renewed (perhaps last ditch) campaign for gender equality - a campaign that could, incidentally, help the Harper government win friends among women voters, otherwise ambivalent about the war..

As for Harper, focusing a post-combat mission on the rights of Afghan women might win him votes here. But will enlightened diplomacy and targeted aid be any more successful than tanks in bringing justice to a society so rooted in misogyny."

yeah right. Somebody better tell them we're losing the war and after everything we've done there, not likely to be welcomed back. Even in our 'enlightened diplomacy' / 'gender equality' disguises..

NDPP

Taliban Peace Talks with Hamid Karzai are 'Mostly Hype'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/taliban-peace-talks-hamid-ka...

"Observers say enounters exaggerated to reinforce impression that NATO and Afghan forces are making gains'

 

NDPP

America: No Stranger to Genocidal War-Crimes

http://canada.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/79466

"Indeed, can anyone swear - given six degrees of separation - that these recent AFghan victims (and those of the authorized murders conducted by CIA, DOD [JTF2] and contracted teams) were not in some way related to terrorism against the United States?..

...I myself heartily disapprove of the criminally insane US foreign policy, and I hate our modern government, with its unlimited, separated powers of bankster, shyster and huckster. I would applaud loudly the bringing down of such a state. I consider myself a spiritual sister to those the US government has murdered, and I am angry at my powerlessness. I have the budding heart of a terrorist. Thank goodness, I'm part of a much larger group of Americans young and old, who generally feel the same way.."

NDPP

Update on US Troops Killing and Chopping Up Afghans for Sport

http://warisacrime.org/content/update-us-troops-killing-and-chopping-afg...

speaking of which - wonder how those secret Canadian JTF2 Afghan 'improper killing' investigations are going?

NDPP

Taliban Capture Key City in Aghanistan

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/149121.html

"The Taliban have gained control of the city of Khogyani in the Ghazni province in central Afghanistan, a Taliban spokesman says. Afghan officials say they have lost all contact with the city.."

NDPP

Osama Has (Not) Left the Building

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LJ30Ak03.html

"Thus playing a double game is key and that applies most of all to Osama and al-Zawahiri, the golden rationale behind the everlasting 'war on terror' another name for the Pentagon's 'long war'."

Glorified Ape

Unionist wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

I fail to see where the retun to power of the old Taliban regime would be a good thing.

We all have failings in life. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

Just count the number of dead and mutiliated Afghans during the Talibans' reign and compare with the last 9 years of liberation by the peace- and justice-loving White Christian Crusading Saviours, and you will begin to understand.

 

To assert that the Taliban ruling Afghanistan again would be a "good thing" is ridiculous (unless you're a proponent of their methods, politics, and world view in which case, it makes perfect sense).  Assuming that you're not a proponent of religious fascism, it suggests to me that, ultimately, you couldn't care less what happens to the Afghan people, so long as the ultimate end state is as damaging and antithetical to the efforts of your opposition as possible. 

While I understand that you're vehemently opposed to the prosecution of a war in Afghanistan by NATO, that doesn't necessitate supporting the Taliban as though the only options are Taliban Oranges or NATO Apples.  If you don't ideologically agree with the former (which I would certainly hope), supporting them solely out of spite for the latter is just petty. It's exactly that type of mentality that drove the US to support most of the despots and extremists they've assisted throughout the years. 

Unionist

You may not understand this, but I support the right of the Afghan people to determine their own destiny without any outside interference. That was the sense of my reply which you quoted above. If the Taliban return to power in a post-invasion Afghanistan - or not - I will celebrate the victory of the Afghan people over colonial oppression in both cases. To think that I and other progressives are such dunces that we can be blackmailed with pathetic taunts like, "So, that means you support the Taliban?", is really to attribute one's own inability to patch together a logical argument to others.

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

Unionist we know you support neither NATO nor the Taliban.

Imprecise. I angrily oppose NATO, the U.S., Canada and their puppets for our invasion and occupation and oppression of the Afghan people. As for the Taliban or the myriad other Afghan political factions, it is not my affair to oppose or support. That's kind of my whole point, isn't it? It's their business. Otherwise, you get to pick and choose for them, and you get to pick and choose when "we" will invade and "help" them to "oppose" the Taliban (I'm running out of """"" marks). Let me reiterate. It's not our business. We're not superior. We're not better. We are far worse than they can ever dream of being - because we sit by as our young uniformed people murder and torture them. We must stop. What they do after is their business.

Quote:
Why not a peace deal now at the expense of warfiteering warfiteers,

The question is utterly meaningless without saying who will be party to that peace deal. The Taliban (however many factions they have)? Karzai's party? Other insurgent groups? Sure, why not. The U.S.? Canada? NATO? Never. They can contribute to peace only by leaving, or by being militarily destroyed. Their choice.

Quote:
The US has meddled in that country for the last 30 years and counting. Neither side in this dispute is going to give up on controlling Afghanistan soon,

I know you and I stand together, but you still have this misconception that the U.S. is all-powerful. The U.S. will run screaming and bleeding from Afghanistan any day now. Just as they did from South-East Asia. Just as the Soviets did from Afghanistan. Just as the U.K. did from its multitude of colonies.

The U.S. is not going to give up on controlling Afghanistan soon? Wanna make a friendly bet? We will be drinking champagne, or some non-alcoholic variant, any day now.

The Afghan people will win!

Fidel

Unionist we know you support neither NATO nor the Taliban.

However, if  we say that we don't support the Taliban, then this non-committal thing does become weird at some point and for me, too. Because what we have today is like two pigs rolling around in the mud and liking it a lot WRT this ten year-long war at the expense of the Afghan people. Which leads to the ultimate question:

 Why not a peace deal now at the expense of warfiteering warfiteers, the drug barons and weapons dealers, the crooks siphoning aid money into their own pockets, and who knows what either side is demanding in those secretive peace talks they've been holding for the last several years? War is an absolute bottom of the barrel situation where the Afghan people are concerned. The US has meddled in that country for the last 30 years and counting. Neither side in this dispute is going to give up on controlling Afghanistan soon, and they are millions of desperately poor people who are caught in the middle. It's time for peace.

We've heard rumors about what the demands are. I'd like to hear a lot more about Taliban demands and bargaining chips. I think that las it was with the Paris peace talks, the Taliban should have the opportunity to have all of their arguments and demands published for all the world to see in major newspapers and broadcasts of formal talks in a neutral meeting place. I'd like everyone in the world to know what the Taliban has put on the table over the years.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
I know you and I stand together, but you still have this misconception that the U.S. is all-powerful. The U.S. will run screaming and bleeding from Afghanistan any day now. Just as they did from South-East Asia. Just as the Soviets did from Afghanistan. Just as the U.K. did from its multitude of colonies.

But there are more than US troops alone in Afghanistan today. There are troops from 48 countries occupying Afghanistan militarily. They could carry on with this great game stuff for many years to come.

Meanwhile, who is supporting the Taliban? Doesn't it seem odd to you that hundreds of thousands of foreign troops with the most modern weapons are at a stalemate against anywhere from 10 to 40,000 or so Taliban? 

Unionist wrote:
The U.S. is not going to give up on controlling Afghanistan soon? Wanna make a friendly bet? We will be drinking champagne, or some non-alcoholic variant, any day now.

The Afghan people will win!

Personally, I think the Taliban should at least have the same opportunity that the NVA did during the Paris peace talks to embarrass the enemy in news reports printed in every major newspaper and televised broadcast of the talks. The US Military lost some public opinion at home and around the world after that. The whole world needs to know what the Taliban have put on the table for the US and 47 other countries since 2001. The world needs to know how the Taliban offered to handover Osama bin Laden and any of his top Generals in exchange for proof of al-Qaeda's guilt in perpetrating the 9/11 terror attacks.

John Pilger wrote:
[url=http://original.antiwar.com/pilger/2009/12/30/2010-welcome-to-orwells-wo... "In 2001,[/url] the Taliban tried three times to hand over bin Laden for trial, reported Pakistan’s military regime, and were ignored."

It's no wonder there are no transparent peace talks with anyone held accountable to the Afghan people. Because there is no proof of anyone's guilt for 9/11. Not legal proof anyway. No, it's a nice quiet war with a lot of money being made and taxpayer's money being siphoned off into everyone's pockets. Peace talks? Not likely. This phony baloney war is far too lucrative to allow peace talks to put an end to the drug running and weapons dealing and taxpayer ripoffs occurring daily. Meanwhile, another generation of Afghans will pay the price. We can hear the plutocrats in Washington yelling, FOUR MORE WARS! The Afghan drug barons, the Afghan-Arab weapons dealers and warmongering plutocrats are all as happy as pigs in muck.

Glorified Ape

Unionist wrote:

You may not understand this, but I support the right of the Afghan people to determine their own destiny without any outside interference. That was the sense of my reply which you quoted above. If the Taliban return to power in a post-invasion Afghanistan - or not - I will celebrate the victory of the Afghan people over colonial oppression in both cases. To think that I and other progressives are such dunces that we can be blackmailed with pathetic taunts like, "So, that means you support the Taliban?", is really to attribute one's own inability to patch together a logical argument to others.

Taunt? Let's do the play by play: 

 

Unionist wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

I fail to see where the retun to power of the old Taliban regime would be a good thing.

We all have failings in life. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

Just count the number of dead and mutiliated Afghans during the Talibans' reign and compare with the last 9 years of liberation by the peace- and justice-loving White Christian Crusading Saviours, and you will begin to understand.

I'll paraphrase as I read it: 

Bec De Corbin: I don't understand how the Taliban returning to power would be good. 

Unionist: (Via non-malicious mocking tone) Your inability to understand that is a failure, but don't be ashamed.  (Implication: their return to power would be good).  

Substantiation: The Taliban killed less people during their reign than have been killed during the "liberation". 

Conclusion: I support the Taliban as I believe their returning to power would be a good thing. The grounds for my believing that are that in the 5 years they were in power, they killed fewer people than during the *9* years that the present *war* has been going on.

Right... what a straw-man "taunt" my critique was. If you don't "support" the Taliban, fine, but you can hardly blame people for thinking you do when you make statements supporting them.  

As for a Taliban re-taking of control being a victory over colonialism, the Afghan people would just be substituting one puppet for another.  You don't actually think the Taliban are a grass-roots, independent political movement free from foreign control, do you?  Who do you think funded (and continues to fund) them, dictates much of the scope of their operations, etc.? A shura of farmers from Zangabad or Pashmul? The largest influence is Pakistan (specifically the ISI), followed by Iran.  That's one of the reasons why, should you dig up an IED anywhere in Kandahar Province, you'll likely find things like Iranian-produced electrical cord and Pakistani commercial-grade detonators in its composition (assuming "Teacher" [aka the bomb-maker] wasn't blown to smithereens by a UAV and his apprentice isn't ineptly cobbling together components from cheap Chinese toy walkie-talkies which will, inevitably, end up prematurely detonating and killing the majority of his fellow IED Cell members). 

Pakistan doesn't want a "strong" Afghanistan as it would inevitably result in a resurgence of Afghan demands for the return of much of Waziristan and other parts of the FATA.  Losing those would also mean losing the ready source of madrassa-produced extremists that would be a valuable resource should an all-out war with India happen.  The tribespeople in the FATA don't like the Pakistani government that much, but they hate India more.  And that's only one of a million reasons why Pakistan will do whatever it can to keep Afghanistan from being independent/developed/etc. Right now, that means supporting the Taliban (their cracking down on activities that challenge Pakistani sovereignty in the FATA isn't irreconcilable with this support). 

Sure, the Taliban receive support from some Afghans, as does the present regime. The only difference between the two (or any likely third party), besides the obvious severity of ideology and politics, is who's backing them.  

As Fidel said, the best bet is a peace between the two sides and some sort of coalition between them until a viable, genuinely Afghan alternative can develop. I'm not even sure that's possible, given the fractious tribalism in Afghanistan and the severity of foreign interference, but there's always hope. 

 

Unionist

Glorified Ape wrote:

If you don't "support" the Taliban, fine, but you can hardly blame people for thinking you do when you make statements supporting them. 

Right. Well, I apologize for people's inability to understand my posts, both the ironic and the non-ironic ones.

Quote:
You don't actually think the Taliban are a grass-roots, independent political movement free from foreign control, do you? 

I don't care. Questions like that are used to justify foreign interference like ours. It is none of your or my business who controls the Taliban. Our business is to get out or get more body bags.

Quote:
The largest influence is Pakistan (specifically the ISI), followed by Iran. 

Now you see why I avoid discussions like these. Iran influences the Taliban. Wow.

 

Fidel

Unionist, what about giving the Taliban a megaphone and platform with respect to official peace talks including representatives from all countries involved ? Or are you basically down with the whole Osama bin Laden and his army of darkness did 9/11 trope? A nice little ten to 20 year-long war on the QT and hush-hush? Apparently some of us need reminding why 48 NATO and ISAF countries are there in Afghanistan uninvited.

Glorified Ape

Unionist wrote:

Glorified Ape wrote:

If you don't "support" the Taliban, fine, but you can hardly blame people for thinking you do when you make statements supporting them. 

Right. Well, I apologize for people's inability to understand my posts, both the ironic and the non-ironic ones.

Right, ignore the contradiction and it'll go away.  I understood the "irony" in the first paragraph. Levity with the basic crux around which the levity revolved being serious. Roger. Ack. Understood.

 The second paragraph was not ironic and was clearly written to substantiate the first. No problem. Re-directing your efforts into attributing your contradicting views to other people's lack of understanding is a giant failure as a retort. I understand that, too - as I believe you do. 

Quote:
You don't actually think the Taliban are a grass-roots, independent political movement free from foreign control, do you? 

I don't care. Questions like that are used to justify foreign interference like ours. It is none of your or my business who controls the Taliban. Our business is to get out or get more body bags.

Right. So you acknowledge substantial foreign control of the Taliban but stated: 

Quote:
If the Taliban return to power in a post-invasion Afghanistan - or not - I will celebrate the victory of the Afghan people over colonial oppression in both cases.

So, although the Taliban are really just another colonial proxy in Afghanistan (albeit by different interests), their assuming power would be a triumph over colonial oppression by the Afghan people? Not tracking that one, sorry. 

Quote:
The largest influence is Pakistan (specifically the ISI), followed by Iran.  

Now you see why I avoid discussions like these. Iran influences the Taliban. Wow.

I'm not sure if that was an objection to my pointing out a painfully obvious and belaboured point in any discussion of the Taliban, or whether you hold that as a belaboured, but demonstrably false, point that's brought up in any discussion of the Taliban. 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
Now you see why I avoid discussions like these.

And the multiple choice questions only get harder as time and warfiteering and phony excuses for a military occupation pass by. At some point the Taliban mullahs and I have to question your leap of faith in the Osama bin Laden and "al-Qaeda" did 9/11 myth. The truth is that there can't be any transparent peace talks, because one of the principals in this conflict is trying to avoid transparency at all cost. Guess who? You have three guesses, and the first two don't count.

[url=http://vietnam.vassar.edu/overview/doc19.html]Hanoi's peace proposal June 26, 1971[/url]

[url=http://vietnam.vassar.edu/overview/doc16.html]The Paris Peace Accords January 27, 1973[/url] excerpts from the Paris peace agreement, formally concluding the war between the United States and North Viet Nam 

The Taliban are cheap dates by comparison. Ten years later and they aren't even officially recognized as enemies with legitimate concerns by the 48 countries occupying their country militarily.

NDPP

Military Resistance: Deflection Day (1)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/40856668/Military-Resistance-8K2-Deflection-Day1

"...the Taliban are winning support beyond the Pashtun community, their traditional base. In Baghlan, where Pashtuns account for less than one quarter of the province's 804,000 residents, the insurgency is now drawing ethnic Uzbeks, Tajiks and other minorities previously seen as unsympathetic to the rebel cause...

'In my own area here and the rest of the north, the Taliban have effectively supplanted the official authorities, running local administration and courts...

'Day by day, the Taliban are advancing into new districts,' said provincial council chief Mohammad Rasoul Mohseni of Baghlan.'

Fidel

[url=http://fsrn.org/audio/web-special-malalai-joya-taliban-peace-efforts-us-... Joya opposes phony peace talks with Taliban[/url] citing not enough representation from legitimate opposition 

Illegit meetings to discuss phony peace deal with "misogynist terrorists."

[url=">http://www.euronews.net/2010/10/08/reports-condemns-us-funding-of-taliba... Report condemns US funding of Taliban[/url]

The one good thing didn't stay too long
My back was turned and she was gone - The Fine Young Cannibals

NDPP

She is right. The current peace talks are phony and illegitimate. In fact no such talks worthy of the term are even occurring. This has been repeatedly stated by the IEA resistance movement, who have not, are not, and will not participate in such talks, until such time as the invaders leave. As for 'misogynist terrorists' there's lots of those on all sides of the table including the US/NATO/Karzai side.  The 'good guys' are responsible for far more dead women, men and kids than any 'Taliban' or 'Al Qaeda'. Best focus on getting our own Canadian  'misogynist terrorists'out of there first..

Fidel

We've heard that opium production was curbed by 2001 under the very noble and benevolent leadership of a Taliban government. There are Taliban profiting from opium exports today however in addition to the corrupt pro-Mujahideen and "former" Taliban commanders in Karzai's US-backed puppet regime.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, they were mainly British and Japanese imperialists who used the opium trade to weaken China for profit and military purposes in Asia. Today the same thing is being done in an attempt to weaken Iran, Russia, and the former republics of the USSR.

This is a phony war in Afghanistan between two illegitimate principals working off each other for their own gain. The Afghan people's interests are the last thing on their criminal minds.

The US created the Taliban.

The US. today, is supplying the Taliban with aid and weapons indirectly and some say even directly.

According to Malalai Joya, The Pakistani ISI  and Iran are both supplying the Taliban covertly.

This is a phony war.

The alleged peace talks held behind closed doors between the Taliban and US-led coalition of countries and with Saudis and Pakistanis "mediating"  are not actually peace talks at all. They are collaborating to keep the phony war going as long as possible.

This is a phony war and a deniable war. The anti-war movement must demand real and legitimate peace talks with UN mediation by loya jirga and all countries involved brought to the table for legitimate and transparent peace talks for all the world to see.

After nearly 31 years of continuous war, the large majority of Afghans want peace.

NDPP

"UN Mediation"? "Loya Jirga?" "all countries involved"? WHAT "anti-war movement?" But it was the UN who authorized ISAF/NATOs illegal occupation in the first place. And as for "all countries brought to the table" - why would you empower imperial forces that are losing in any case, to get to impose their will via 'legitimate and transparent peace talks for all the world to see'? Yeah right Fidel...

Phony war? Phony solutions...Canada Out Now!

Fidel

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:
But it was the UN who authorized ISAF/NATOs illegal occupation in the first place.

They were UNSC member countries that endorsed the attack on Afghanistan three days into the world wide hysterics surrounding  certain false flag terror attacks on 9/11. Most of the people of the world had no say in the matter.

But this is no reason to smear the majority of UN member nations who might never have voted for US-led military aggression against desperately poor countries which, and as it becomes more evident, had absolutely nothing to do with the false flag gladio style terrorism on 9/11.

In fact, the Taliban tried to hand over the king of terror to the US for trial. The gladio gang wanted nothing to do with Osama bin Laden or any of their own creations, 'the base' of expendable anticommunist jihadi terrorist assets often referred to as "al-Qaeda."

Nodifferencepartypooper wrote:
And as for "all countries brought to the table" - why would you empower imperial forces that are losing in any case, to get to impose their will via 'legitimate and transparent peace talks for all the world to see'? Yeah right Fidel...

Phony war? Phony solutions...Canada Out Now

 The imperial forces and hundreds of thousands of troops from 48 countries are not losing to 10 or 20,000 Taliban or an estimated grand sum total of 50 al-CIA'duh allegedly hiding out in Afghanistan. That is an illusion for the general public's benefit. Meanwhile phony war and the drug trafficking and the tremendous taxpayer ripoffs reign merrily.

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

Unionist wrote:

 The U.S. will run screaming and bleeding from Afghanistan any day now. The U.S. is not going to give up on controlling Afghanistan soon? Wanna make a friendly bet? We will be drinking champagne, or some non-alcoholic variant, any day now.

 

Yeah, with a Republican controlled HoR the USA is going to be running from Afghanistan before a week is out (any day now, right?)...

I'll take that bet...

I, Bec De Corbin, post before all here on rabble, a bet to Unionist wagering a 6 pack of Arrogant Bastard Ale http://www.arrogantbastard.com/index2.html that the USA will not be running screaming and bleeding, being driven in total disarray from Afghanistan by November 10 2010.

What wager you sir?

Fidel

The Afghan people have been losing for the last 31 years in a row with war a constant in their lives. Neither the US-led NATO forces nor the Taliban are interested in pursuing democracy in that country or anywhere else for that matter.

Prediction? : More phony war at the expense of another generation of Afghans. Mainly cloudy with bursts of fascism.

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

Fidel wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
What wager you sir?

I think he could be betting that US Conservatives will eventually be pressured into pulling out of Vietnam Afghanistan under threat of impeachment of crazy George Dubya-Palin III  for not abiding by Paris peace accord, I mean,  secret peace arrangments for which the details will be laid out in easy to read Arabic on a napkin stolen from a swanky hotel room in Karachi or Kabul. Just a wild guess, because we never can tell what's up or who's on third with these types of phony wars that look a lot like continuation of cold war bs.

Fidel I don't think Unionist needs you talking for him.

As for the content of you post: you didn't read the bet did you? All that going to happen "any day now"?

I'm willing to bet not...

Fidel

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
What wager you sir?

I think he could be betting that US Conservatives will eventually be pressured into pulling out of Vietnam Afghanistan under threat of impeachment of crazy George Dubya-Palin III  for not abiding by Paris peace accord, I mean,  secret peace arrangments for which the details will be laid out in easy to read Arabic on a napkin stolen from a swanky hotel room in Karachi or Kabul. Just a wild guess, because we never can tell what's up or who's on third with these types of phony wars that look a lot like continuation of cold war bs.

Apparently our anti-war stand comes down to this pathetic bit of wishful thinking:  We' are counting on war criminals to come to their senses eventually and cease murdering civilians as well as their own pawns on either side doing the firing of bullets and mortars and murdering other desperately poor people on some flunky's orders.

But we won't say anthing about the need for legit peace talks, because the war crims are doing just fine collaborating with one another to keep it going. Perhaps the Taliban could use some more ammo and field rations observed being air dropped to them and which look exactly like the same rations and ammo supplied to NATO troops.

Fidel

I don't bet on wars. It's immoral. Yes I think it's time for me to "pull out" of this sordid discussion now reduced to hockey pool mentality.

Pages

Topic locked