Page 91 of 101 FirstFirst ...
41
81
89
90
91
92
93
... LastLast
  1. #1801
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    I don't know how much I agree with this OP ED written by an ex-CIA guy. But he does cite the following:



    I'm of mixed feelings about this. For one, the only way to shut that down is to, well, basically attack the Taliban again. Just economically. The other side, is if the USA is going to let the Taliban run the place on their own...ugh, I hate even saying that...but, losing the literal majority of their funds won't slide, and we'd need people there to enforce the ban which doesn't sound like "run the place on their own".

    So there are two options, both bad. An already ill-suited-for-governing Taliban with most of its money gone? Or a country run by US sanctioned drug lords?
    If US/EU would care so much, they would simply pay. I see Taliban already asking for $$.

    I'm not some Taliban fanboy, but they already did a pretty effective ban in past and boy do they know how to enforce it too.

    Overall, people should get used to reality that they are the government there for the foreseeable future and that's how it is. Nobody going to be invading Afghanistan anytime soon, unless they want to have their heads on a pike too alongside past invaders.
    Last edited by Gaidax; 2021-09-15 at 04:01 PM.
    All my ignores are permanently filtered out and invisible to me. Responding to my posts with nonsense or insults is pointless, you're likely already invisible and if not - 3 clicks away. One ignore is much better than 3 pages of trolling.

  2. #1802
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    32,592
    GOP Senators introduce a bill to designate the Taliban as a terrorist group.

    "What's wrong with that?"

    For me? Nothing. I've been clear on the subject. I'm just curious whether these GOP Senators will also admit Trump negotiated with them instead of the Afghani government, and therefore, directly and specifically negotiated with terrorists.

  3. #1803
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/14/polit...tan/index.html

    Interesting information from Woodward and Costa's upcoming book. Apparently Miley and Blinken were both in favor of keeping the US in Afghanistan for longer, with a much more protracted drawdown.

    Biden said nah, we been there too long already and staying there longer won't benefit us any more than the previous 20 years. If true, good on him.

  4. #1804
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    GOP Senators introduce a bill to designate the Taliban as a terrorist group.

    "What's wrong with that?"

    For me? Nothing. I've been clear on the subject. I'm just curious whether these GOP Senators will also admit Trump negotiated with them instead of the Afghani government, and therefore, directly and specifically negotiated with terrorists.
    Has the Taliban ever attacked US outside Afganistan? Guessing no honestly so you want to designate them as terrorist for taking back there country?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/14/polit...tan/index.html

    Interesting information from Woodward and Costa's upcoming book. Apparently Miley and Blinken were both in favor of keeping the US in Afghanistan for longer, with a much more protracted drawdown.

    Biden said nah, we been there too long already and staying there longer won't benefit us any more than the previous 20 years. If true, good on him.
    If the US only stayed 1 month longer I'm sure things would be different
    /S

    Whatever happend was going to happen regardless (including the chaos that try to flee) unless the US decided that having a corrupt local government that they can control is not in their own best long term intrest. Any time line of US withdrawal would have still resulted in the same.

  5. #1805
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    32,592
    Quote Originally Posted by ati87 View Post
    Has the Taliban ever attacked US outside Afganistan?
    Wow. Fucking seriously?

    In 1996 Mohammad Najibullah Ahmadzai, former president of Afghanistan, was caught by the Taliban trying to flee the country. He was dragged into the street and lynched. After effectively taking over the country, they cement their rule by subjugating the population and murdering those who resist.

    There's also the matter of UN resolution 1267. The date is 1999. Those are terrorist sanctions.

    And let's not rule out their actions while occupied by Russia -- even if they weren't the group known as the Taliban yet, it was the same human beings. And just because they were going after Russia didn't make it any better.

    Oh, and of course, the fact that we asked them to turn over Osama bin Laden and they refused. Which, if you'd actually been reading my posts, has been my point all along.

    I reject the implication that the Taliban can't be terrorists unless they attack the US or its people. That's deplorable. What the hell, man?

    I reject the implication that their actions before we invaded don't count, or just as bad, that you didn't know what they were.

    I reject the implication that I designated them terrorists because they, as an un-elected militant group that ruled by threats force and murder before we arrived, were taking back "their" country.

    And I reject the implication that, even if they hadn't been caught sheltering and aiding known terrorists groups before we arrived (which they were, the UN was resolutionly clear), that directly, specifically and publicly siding with and protecting Osama bin Laden after 9/11 wasn't enough to label them as terrorists all by itself. This wasn't "we agree with what he did" it was "we're siding with him with our very lives".

    Where the hell did this even come from? What's wrong with you, man?

  6. #1806
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Wow. Fucking seriously?

    In 1996 Mohammad Najibullah Ahmadzai, former president of Afghanistan, was caught by the Taliban trying to flee the country. He was dragged into the street and lynched. After effectively taking over the country, they cement their rule by subjugating the population and murdering those who resist.

    There's also the matter of UN resolution 1267. The date is 1999. Those are terrorist sanctions.

    And let's not rule out their actions while occupied by Russia -- even if they weren't the group known as the Taliban yet, it was the same human beings. And just because they were going after Russia didn't make it any better.

    Oh, and of course, the fact that we asked them to turn over Osama bin Laden and they refused. Which, if you'd actually been reading my posts, has been my point all along.

    I reject the implication that the Taliban can't be terrorists unless they attack the US or its people. That's deplorable. What the hell, man?

    I reject the implication that their actions before we invaded don't count, or just as bad, that you didn't know what they were.

    I reject the implication that I designated them terrorists because they, as an un-elected militant group that ruled by threats force and murder before we arrived, were taking back "their" country.

    And I reject the implication that, even if they hadn't been caught sheltering and aiding known terrorists groups before we arrived (which they were, the UN was resolutionly clear), that directly, specifically and publicly siding with and protecting Osama bin Laden after 9/11 wasn't enough to label them as terrorists all by itself. This wasn't "we agree with what he did" it was "we're siding with him with our very lives".

    Where the hell did this even come from? What's wrong with you, man?
    Yes seriously because if we use your standard then the US should be considered a terrorist nation to the likes we haven't seen since Nazi Germany.
    How many god dam people died because the US invaded Afghanistan and Irak? The Taliban for all of his faults did not attack the US and neither did Irak and both countries have been absolutely been reduces to shambles.

    If you want to get rid of groups like the Taliban and ISIS then you really should do the reverse of whatever you think the US government should be doing because doing the same thing and expecting different results (it's a good quote isn't it!) is the definition of instantly.

  7. #1807
    Quote Originally Posted by ati87 View Post
    Has the Taliban ever attacked US outside Afganistan? Guessing no honestly so you want to designate them as terrorist for taking back there country?
    It's not their country. They're a small minority who terrorize the rest of the afghan people. They are terrorists no matter how you try to twist it. You don't seem to have any historical knowledge about this subject whatsoever.

  8. #1808
    Merely a Setback JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    27,917
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    It's not their country. They're a small minority who terrorize the rest of the afghan people. They are terrorists no matter how you try to twist it. You don't seem to have any historical knowledge about this subject whatsoever.
    By that logic a lot of countries governments are terrorist organizations. Which is way to wide of definition.


    ISIS is the Afghan's problem, not the US.
    Last edited by JohnBrown1917; 2021-09-16 at 01:09 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    Timmy still can get lunch, it's just not free.

  9. #1809
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnBrown1917 View Post
    By that logic a lot of countries governments are terrorist organizations. Which is way to wide of definition.
    I don't see any logic in that brainfart. Keep it to yourself next time please.

  10. #1810
    Merely a Setback JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    27,917
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    I don't see any logic in that brainfart.
    You don't know any other country where the minority rules through heavy handed methods? Probably should take a few classes on world geography.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    Timmy still can get lunch, it's just not free.

  11. #1811
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    32,592
    Quote Originally Posted by ati87 View Post
    The Taliban for all of his faults did not attack the US
    And the getaway driver didn't shoot anyone, but he knowningly worked with the people who did after the shooting, so guess what I feel about his involvement?

    And...why are you even suggesting I'm in favor of the Iraq invasion? I don't remember saying anything like that. HW's attack at least had the excuse that Iraq invaded an ally, but W's attack was a stupid petty revenge hit and should never have happened.

    And re-read what you just wrote. When did the Nazis attack the US?

    Yeah I'm done entertaining this "they didn't personally attack the USA so they're just misunderstood freedom fighters" argument. That's leaning heavily towards Trump talk about the murderous insurrection. Especially from someone who clearly hasn't actually read what I've posted on the subject. Fuck that logic, it's not worth further responses.

  12. #1812
    Merely a Setback JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    27,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    And the getaway driver didn't shoot anyone, but he knowningly worked with the people who did after the shooting, so guess what I feel about his involvement?

    And...why are you even suggesting I'm in favor of the Iraq invasion? I don't remember saying anything like that. HW's attack at least had the excuse that Iraq invaded an ally, but W's attack was a stupid petty revenge hit and should never have happened.

    And re-read what you just wrote. When did the Nazis attack the US?

    Yeah I'm done entertaining this "they didn't personally attack the USA so they're just misunderstood freedom fighters" argument. That's leaning heavily towards Trump talk about the murderous insurrection. Especially from someone who clearly hasn't actually read what I've posted on the subject. Fuck that logic, it's not worth further responses.
    When they declared war on the US?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    Timmy still can get lunch, it's just not free.

  13. #1813
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    32,592
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnBrown1917 View Post
    When they declared war on the US?
    Now, this is a reasonable answer, using political terms of course.

    And that was when? Dec 11, 1941, right? Shortly after their allies bombed Pearl Harbor and the Nazis jumped in to defend them? That sounds a lot like what the Taliban did when their allies attacked US. Now, the Taliban couldn't declare war because, heh, they weren't a country, but they did see the enraged US demanding the person who attacked us, and said "No, and we'll try to stop you if you come here and try." Which I claim is close enough.

    Also US troops started arriving in EUrope in Jan 1942, despite Nazis never physically attacking the US, but had been bombing London since Sept 1940 and France surrendering a few months before. For which we didn't send troops. The parallel is pretty damn strong.

    Or.

    You could go with "attacked" in a far less political, formal sense, as in "when did they actually personally try to damage US" in which case the Nazis didn't seem to do that.

    So, the Taliban either attacked us first in a country-vs-country political sense, like a declaration of war is an attack...or, they didn't attack us but neither did the Nazis.

  14. #1814
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnBrown1917 View Post
    By that logic a lot of countries governments are terrorist organizations. Which is way to wide of definition.


    ISIS is the Afghan's problem, not the US.
    ISIS is not the Afghan's problems; as ISIS means Islamic State of Iraq and Syria - and Afghanistan isn't in Iraq or Syria.

    They rebranded themselves IS when they got broader ambitions; including Afghanistan and Africa.

    So, most of the actions of Islamic State are outside of Afghanistan, including attacking the US - and thus they are an US-problem.
    However, there is a minor issue of Islamic State-Khorasan which is now part of the Afghan's problems.

  15. #1815
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    369
    This info from the OP ED might be out of date. The Taliban very early in their takeover said they are not going to allow opium farming (for very long at least). Whether they will be able to achieve that may be a different story. But they said they are actively looking at aid from China and Pakistan to switch opium farmers to other crops because drug use does not align with Sharia law.

    The catch is that the US tried the same for years and had no success, since opium is far more profitable than other crops for Afghan farmers. It is one advantage of a heavy-handed government in that part of the world where authoritarian governments are the norm. If the Taliban don't want farmers growing opium, they'll stop them quickly enough one way or another. Them throwing family members in the trunk of a car never to be seen again tends to be a strong incentive. Not that I agree with it, but that's the government they chose when the Afghan military dropped their weapons and walked away from their bases without a fight.

    The Taliban are also working hard to convert a large part of the economy to mineral mining with China rather than farming. I am curious to see how the precarious relationship between China and the Taliban pans out. The mass internment and mistreatment of Uyghur Muslims started only after a handful of small knife terror attacks in China. It would seem to be difficult justify for the Taliban to work closely with a country that has one of the worst records for treatment of Muslims in the world. Add lots of Chinese soon to be working in Afghanistan on mines and the Silk Road Initiative, ISIS-K, insurgents in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban, and you can see how that could go bad quickly.
    Last edited by Biglog; 2021-09-16 at 01:57 PM.

  16. #1816
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    32,592
    Quote Originally Posted by Biglog View Post
    This info from the OP ED might be out of date. The Taliban very early in their takeover said they are not going to allow opium farming (for very long at least). Whether they will be able to achieve that may be a different story. But they said they are actively looking at aid from China and Pakistan to switch opium farmers to other crops because drug use does not align with Sharia law.
    It's not so much "out of date" as it's intentionally referring to previous years. It's encouraging to see the specific plans they're making to replace that income, though.

  17. #1817
    Ah, someone starting off about Gaza in a thread half a world away. Love this forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by uuuhname View Post
    and there it is, the forever back seat driver; barking orders like it's your car and as if anyone is interested in handing you the AUX cord.

    yeah, NO SHIT you don't care about the US being the one who has to spend it's money, resources and lives so you can pretend to piggy back off of an empire that was never yours. it's so easy for you to get angry when you're not the one who has had to suffer from the cultural and financial rot that has been the war on terror. it's so easy to act like an arm chair general and recede into your mind palace and come up with all sorts of inane situations where the switch is flipped and democracy kicks in just like the family guy joke I mentioned in the first response to this thread.



    I'm sorry that facts and history don't jive with your jingoism broseph. the fact that I care at all to criticize it means I care about it more than you do.
    You forgot that Baltics joined the Afghanistan mission, as did so many others. I do love the raging and whining about "rot", whatever that means.
    And I was very clear about "democracy kicking in" - stay as long as is needed, instead of using "going home" as an election slogan for the average voter.

    Also, I love how you did not answer about what America's reaction should have been after Taliban refused to stop sheltering AQ.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonnysensible View Post
    werent all the numbers completely bunk. i.e there was 700 schools in x district on paper, but in reality there was less that 50. The teachers drew a salary that got creamed by the local powerbroker but never actually did any teaching. (outside of the big cities)
    First time hearing this. Pretty sure the education numbers come from the UN.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidax View Post
    If US/EU would care so much, they would simply pay. I see Taliban already asking for $$.

    I'm not some Taliban fanboy, but they already did a pretty effective ban in past and boy do they know how to enforce it too.

    Overall, people should get used to reality that they are the government there for the foreseeable future and that's how it is. Nobody going to be invading Afghanistan anytime soon, unless they want to have their heads on a pike too alongside past invaders.
    Talibs also found out that sellings drugs is really profitable and quickly changed their minds after the invasion. They absolutely will keep doing it. Religious fanatics being hypocrates is a very old thing in the world.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  18. #1818
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnBrown1917 View Post
    No evidence exists that Gaido would be the more popular choice, he is not exactly well-liked over in Venezuela.
    No. But he was in those elections the only viable alternative. And people voted for him.

    I'm pretty sure you could run Hernan Cortez himself on a ticket for returning Venezuela to the Spanish Empire and people would vote for him over Maduro just because it isn't Maduro.

    Careful not to fall into the trap of supporting fucking kleptocratic authoritarian dictators just because they describe themselves as being on the left.

    Maduro just like Chavez before him are fucking run of the mill Caudillos. What side of the political spectrum they claim to be is utterly irrelevant. They are mob bosses.

    I live in Madrid, it's where all the members of the ruling party send their kids to study, I mean party and flash their wealth.

    Barrio Salamanca (ritziest neighborhood in the city) is choke full of the Venezuelan ruling party's kids. It's almost a running joke.

    And all the ministers in Maduros government have homes up and down the Costa del Sol, mostly around Marbella (Miami of Europe).
    Last edited by Mihalik; 2021-09-16 at 04:55 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    It doesnt destroy the land to bury styrofoam 25 feet below the ground
    Today Obama once again kneeled at the altar of environmental naziism and hurt this once great country. He has now banned all drilling in the Atlantic Ocean

  19. #1819
    Merely a Setback JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    27,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    No. But he was in those elections the only viable alternative. And people voted for him.
    Does not mean he was actually the more popular candidate, he was also strongly disliked in Venezuela.

    Maduro is hardly the first leader to both have enough support from part of the population while another part of the population hates his guts.

    I'm pretty sure you could run Hernan Cortez himself on a ticket for returning Venezuela to the Spanish Empire and people would vote for him over Maduro just because .
    I doubt it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    ISIS is not the Afghan's problems; as ISIS means Islamic State of Iraq and Syria - and Afghanistan isn't in Iraq or Syria.

    They rebranded themselves IS when they got broader ambitions; including Afghanistan and Africa.

    So, most of the actions of Islamic State are outside of Afghanistan, including attacking the US - and thus they are an US-problem.
    However, there is a minor issue of Islamic State-Khorasan which is now part of the Afghan's problems.
    Ah my bad, ment the Taliban.
    Last edited by JohnBrown1917; 2021-09-16 at 05:32 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    Timmy still can get lunch, it's just not free.

  20. #1820
    BREAKING: A Newsmax anchor just blew up and angrily cut off an American veteran who is helping to evacuate Americans and Afghan allies for pointing out that Trump is responsible for much of the problem.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/NoLieWith...49709438738432

    Not an understatement.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •