|
|
|
iceaura
Registered Senior User (10,465 posts)
|
|
11-04-09, 01:39 PM
|
#81
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by count
I don't care what they "think" are.
Crackpots, despots and killers the world over can rationalize their actions and view themselves in all sorts of fanciful terms, but their actions can and should be defined by rational observers.
|
|
The question of what a rational observer would make of the US alliance with Hekmatyar and the Uzbek galamjam,
or the US installation of a cooperative central government so unattractive to its citizenry that it cannot unite this supposed citizenry in defense against a supposedly hated enemy they vastly outnumber and outgun, and so corrupt that "revelations" of its inner circle's associations with 90% if the world's opium smuggling are greeted with a collective shrug
or the US creation and operation of a large extra-legal prison system in the country, coincident with the development of a "dirty war" in neighboring Pakistan, and rapidly acquiring a reputation not common to the better class of prisons,
and so forth.
|
|
StrawDog
disseminated primatemaia (1,855 posts)
|
|
11-04-09, 03:31 PM
|
#82
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by countezero
You hold states accountable for what they do as states. And in the case of Afghanistan, you have a state allowing transnational terrorists to train, plan, finance and orchestrate acts of terror and violence across the world.
|
|
The Taliban stated at the time that it was unaware and had no connection to any terrorist or criminal activity by AQ or other. In spite of these statements and without due investigation, substantiation and presentation of evidence, the US invaded Afghanistan against the norms of International Law. In a nutshell, the Afghan people were punished for the crimes of a small criminal or terrorist organization. The issue of training, financing, etc, could have been pursued via diplomacy and other non violent means.
|
No, they essentially ran all the other farmers out of business, then they sold the heroin themselves. That's undeniable.
|
|
The Taliban agreed under international pressure to eradicate or reduce opium crops. The very successful results are illustrated in the graph in Post #72.
|
|
spidergoat
It's all about the hexagons (29,191 posts)
|
|
11-04-09, 03:40 PM
|
#83
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by StrawDog
The eradication efforts were indisputably well underway before the US invasion. After which it resumed its upward trend.
|
|
What better way to make money than eradicate your competition and reduce the supply? What other souce of funds do they have besides donations?
|
|
|
StrawDog
disseminated primatemaia (1,855 posts)
|
|
11-04-09, 03:46 PM
|
#84
|
|
|
|
On topic.
|
Hail of fire raises a chilling question: who is the enemy in Afghanistan?
|
|
|
The soldiers had just completed a patrol and unslung their rifles when the Afghan policeman began shooting
Inside the walls of the checkpoint, rifles were unslung and body armour put aside as the men drank tea, completed paperwork and relaxed after their mission.
But, unknown to the men, one of the Afghan police a man named Gulbadin had clambered on to the flat roof of the building above, armed with a powerful PK machine gun. When he started shooting, the soldiers barely had a chance.
|
|
|
What little is known about Gulbadin, who some sources say may have been injured in the exchange of fire, is deeply suggestive. It indicates experts and military sources believe the complex and shifting loyalties among police, Afghan soldiers and local politicians in Afghanistan's Taliban insurgency.
"The questions we need to ask are much more complex than are apparent at first view," said one Nato officer in the Afghan mission. "What is a Taliban? What is the threat? From our end the concern is the same as the argument laid out by David Kilcullen [the influential Australian counter-insurgency expert]. It is about loyalty. Even if individuals think ISAF [the International Security Assistance Force] is doing a good job, they are still not your own people. Nowhere is that more true than in Helmand where we are confronted by overlapping webs of association and loyalty.
|
|
The loyalties can never be in favor of the invaders. Afghan history has illustrated this time and again. Foreign troops will always be vulnerable in this so called war of necessity. What exactly was the point of this tragic loss of life? Will the message be understood?
|
|
|
StrawDog
disseminated primatemaia (1,855 posts)
|
|
11-04-09, 03:50 PM
|
#85
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by spidergoat
What better way to make money than eradicate your competition and reduce the supply? What other souce of funds do they have besides donations?
|
|
Or, perhaps they acted in good faith as the graph indicates. 
|
|
|
11-04-09, 03:58 PM
|
#87
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by StrawDog
The Taliban stated at the time that it was unaware and had no connection to any terrorist or criminal activity by AQ or other.
|
|
That's bullshit. Al Qaeda helped fund the Taliban's rise to power. It also funneled it fighters and resources. Al Qaeda killed Massood for the Taliban. And to pretend the Taliban did not know, and encourage, graduates from the terrorist camps it allowed to exist to go abroad and wage jihad is ridiculous.
|
Originally Posted by StrawDog
In spite of these statements and without due investigation, substantiation and presentation of evidence, the US invaded Afghanistan against the norms of International Law.
|
|
NATO and the UN both agreed with the intervention.
|
Originally Posted by StrawDog
The Taliban agreed under international pressure to eradicate or reduce opium crops. The very successful results are illustrated in the graph in Post #72.
|
|
But they did not eradicate the Heroin production. Indeed, they sold it. You seem to be in denial about this.
|
|
|
StrawDog
disseminated primatemaia (1,855 posts)
|
|
11-04-09, 05:04 PM
|
#88
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by countezero
That's bullshit. Al Qaeda helped fund the Taliban's rise to power. It also funneled it fighters and resources. Al Qaeda killed Massood for the Taliban. And to pretend the Taliban did not know, and encourage, graduates from the terrorist camps it allowed to exist to go abroad and wage jihad is ridiculous.
|
|
1. Sources?
2. The US funded and armed AQ to wage Jihad against the Russians. Do you agree then that its the exclusive right of the US to fund "terrorist" organizations? Why?
|
NATO and the UN both agreed with the intervention.
|
|
1. The US owns NATO and the UN. 
2. The debate regarding legality still rages.
|
But they did not eradicate the Heroin production. Indeed, they sold it. You seem to be in denial about this.
|
|
Granted, eradicate is the wrong term, reduced is preferable, and yes, I agree that the poppy business is booming and funding the Taliban.
And of course if there is the issue of CIA complicity.
|
|
|
StrawDog
disseminated primatemaia (1,855 posts)
|
|
11-04-09, 06:31 PM
|
#90
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by spidergoat
There was no Al Quida at the time of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.
|
|
The origins of AQ can be traced to:
|
The historical origins of Al Qaeda - The alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorists attacks, Saudi-born Osama bin Laden, was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war, "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders".(Hugh Davies, "`Informers point the finger at bin Laden; Washington on alert for suicide bombers." The Daily Telegraph, London, 24 August 1998).
In 1979 the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA was launched in Afghanistan:
"With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistans ISI, who wanted to turn the Afghan Jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistans fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually, more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad." (Ahmed Rashid, "The Taliban: Exporting Extremism", Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999).
|
|
etc.
|
|
|
11-04-09, 06:35 PM
|
#91
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by StrawDog
The origins of AQ can be traced to:
|
|
The origins of many of the groups fighting on the US side in Afghanistan can be traced to the exact same sources.
|
|
|
spidergoat
It's all about the hexagons (29,191 posts)
|
|
11-04-09, 06:37 PM
|
#92
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by StrawDog
The origins of AQ can be traced to:
etc.
|
|
That's right, he was just another Jihadi.
|
|
|
StrawDog
disseminated primatemaia (1,855 posts)
|
|
11-04-09, 06:45 PM
|
#93
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by quadraphonics
The origins of many of the groups fighting on the US side in Afghanistan can be traced to the exact same sources.
|
|
Yes I agree. So when is a terrorist a terrorist?
|
|
|
StrawDog
disseminated primatemaia (1,855 posts)
|
|
11-04-09, 06:46 PM
|
#94
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by spidergoat
That's right, he was just another Jihadi.
|
|
And Frankenstein`s monster.
|
|
|
StrawDog
disseminated primatemaia (1,855 posts)
|
|
11-04-09, 07:35 PM
|
#95
|
|
|
|
A strong indication of WTF? (or, "Critical Thinking - How I Flunked" by Awar `O Nessity)
|
Hamid Karzai reaches out to 'Taliban brothers' in Afghanistan
Hamid Karzai offered an olive branch to his "Taliban brothers" in a victory speech a day after he was declared president.
|
|
|
Mr Karzai made his remarks as the Taliban issued a statement ridiculing him as a foreign "puppet".
The statement said the elections had shown "decisions on Afghanistan are made in Washington and London, while the announcements are made in Kabul."
It added: "What is astonishing is two weeks ago they were arguing that the puppet president Hamid Karzai was involved in electoral fraud... but now he is elected as president based on those same fraudulent votes, Washington and London immediately send their congratulations."
|
|
|
During his speech, Mr Karzai said: "Afghanistan has been defamed by corruption. Our government has been defamed by corruption." He said his regime would "strive, by any means possible," to eradicate it, but failed to spell out detailed proposals.
Mr Karzai's own brother, Ahmad Wali, has been accused of being one of the biggest drug traffickers in southern Afghanistan and many in Washington are understood to want him exiled.
However he is also reported to have been on the CIA payroll for most of the past eight years.
|
|
It seems everything is under control, there is no confusion, no reason to worry and democracy is just moments away.
|
|
|
11-04-09, 07:41 PM
|
#97
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by StrawDog
Yes I agree. So when is a terrorist a terrorist?
|
|
When she engages in terrorism, presumably.
Did you have a point, here?
|
|
|
StrawDog
disseminated primatemaia (1,855 posts)
|
|
11-04-09, 08:03 PM
|
#98
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by quadraphonics
When she engages in terrorism, presumably.
Did you have a point, here?
|
|
She?
The point is, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Depending on who is pointing the finger. Conveniently.
|
|
|
11-04-09, 08:17 PM
|
#99
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by StrawDog
She?
|
|
What, you have a problem with PC pronouns?
|
Originally Posted by StrawDog
The point is, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
|
|
And...? Are you arguing that AQ are not terrorists? Or that the entire question of terrorism exists in a context of moral relativism?
And if it's the latter, are you positive you like the implications of that (both generally and in this specific context)?
Or is this just the facile observation that states often don't care so much about terrorism perpetrated against their enemies?
|
|
|
StrawDog
disseminated primatemaia (1,855 posts)
|
|
11-04-09, 08:43 PM
|
#100
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by quadraphonics
What, you have a problem with PC pronouns?
|
|
No, its just a curious expression.
|
And...? Are you arguing that AQ are not terrorists?
|
|
No, as per the classical definition of " terrorism", AQ fits the bill.
|
Or that the entire question of terrorism exists in a context of moral relativism?
|
|
Curiously, their (AQ) genesis was via the CIA inspired and supported mantle of Mujahideen, ie. freedom fighter.
|
And if it's the latter, are you positive you like the implications of that (both generally and in this specific context)?
|
|
No, terrorism perpetrated against innocents and civilians for whatever reason is despicable and should be condemned.
What I find curious is that what used to pass for "freedom fighter" as part of a prior geo-strategic agenda, now passes for "terrorist", under a revised geo-strategic agenda.
|
Or is this just the facile observation that states often don't care so much about terrorism perpetrated against their enemies?
|
|
This is clearly a possible interpretation.
|
|
