Sexist! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What's curious about that? It's been the standard routine for states throughout recorded history.
Why bother? I've posted the stuff several times. So have others. You continue to be wrong about basic issues, that can be fact-checked, because you rely on Lefty press clippings and ignore more sober sources. In your latest post we see more of the same: For the record, the US had nothing to do with bin Laden's decision to go to Afghanistan and found his organization there. If you consult bin Laden's own writings you will see this. It's also described fairly accurately by Lawrence Wright in The Looming Tower. Bin Laden went to Afghanistan because of Sheik Abdullah Azzam's fatwa (p. 110). Back to the Taliban, the best sources on the relationship are Rashid and Coll, both of whom detail how bin Laden provided money, trucks and other material to them. As has already been pointed out, Al Qaeda did not even exist during the Soviet Jihad, so I can only assume that in your zeal to criticize America, you are referring to the Afghan Arabs, which the US did not fund, either. In fact, as Wright makes clear, the Afghans actually asked them to leave because they were useless fighters. That must be why both got on board the Iraq invasion then, right? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Not regarding Afghanistan.
More commentary on Karzai`s sudden leap to credibility. The ongoing hypocrisy in a nutshell. Deja Vu anyone?
If people are loving Karzai and totally accepting his "election," it's news to me. Didn't we send Kerry over there to browbeat him into accepting a second round? Not that that went anywhere in the end, but my impression is that this turn of events is regarded as a disaster, and may scuttle plans for any protracted state-building approach to Afghanistan. We will see.
You mean the US supported Mujahideen that birthed AQ and the Taliban? So where the Mujahideen terrorists or not? Patently. Of course there is.
Yes, sadly. I will endeavor to will remain positive notwithstanding the universal frailties of human nature. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I love it. In trying to run away from your first mistake -- "The US funded and armed AQ to wage Jihad against the Russians" -- you make even more. The Muj did not birth the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda were Arabs, and thus cannot and are not, Muj. Al Qaeda birthed itself out of what was left after the war. The Taliban origins are largely in Pakistan. They fought the Muj after the Soviets left. Difficult to say. They certainly used some terrorist tactics, but the differences between the Muj and the Taliban, and their circumstances, have already been discussed by me. Actually, that's not the case. That dog shit link is exactly why you keeping embarrassing yourself. You need to read legitimate material.
I agree its murky, but in a nutshell. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! For some reason you are obsessed with embarrassment? Read the linked information provided, the arguments are sound, if a little lively. I concur, nothing is set in stone, but feel free to debate any points.
It's not murky, you are talking about groups of people that have little to do with each other, beyond the fact they were all in the same place at different times. At the same time, you are misstating things, like when Al Qaeda came into being and who the Taliban was associated with. This is more a case of smoke and no fire, if you ask me. It's true that Carter signed the order to assist the Muj, though why this surprises anyone is beyond me. Carter was pissed that the Soviets invaded, hence his decision to boycott the Olympics. I've read Brzezinski's comments and what people have made of them or contorted them into. I find the argument that the US induced the invasion too simplistic, too biased. The amount of aid heading to Kabul in the Carter administration was so small that it was later ridiculed by the Afghans and their Pakistani masters. CIA, also famously, had no interest in really fighting there until Casey came to Langley and told them to go for it. So, in other words, if Z really wanted to induce an invasion, he didn't do a good job of it. Furthermore, I think recently released documents, show the Soviets were more concerned about the politics of the situation and that the decision to invade was made much earlier.
Let's quote that famous former Taliban Guest again: -source I think that when any of us consider what may have motivated al-Qaeda and imitators, or more importantly what issues al-Qaeda and imitators ride on the coattails of, then we should be carefully attentive to their homeward propaganda. I understand that this is uncomfortable for you, countezero- but it's necessary for your learning.
Strawdog: "More commentary on Karzai`s sudden leap to credibility." That's a fine idea. I'm always one to welcome a righteous realignment of topic. I don't know why we don't do a full coronation, like with the Shah. At least we could have some class about this; hire some really expensive architects, tailors, jewelers, caterers, designers, etc. We could employ the entire nation in pimping out Karzai (and the entire country would play along) for less than it's costing us to fuck everything up. Of course they'd soon kill him, but it would be very glamorous and romantic. And we (foreign occupiers) could just go home. And the Taliban could just fall apart like all Green Scare wannabe-mehdis do.
Do you really think the Taliban would fall apart if the US left? I think history and all the indicators on the ground show they would only grow in strength..
While you did say, "could just", that is still a pretty big stretch. Comfortable speculation, sure. But there's not really any evidence to support that claim. ~String
The taliban falls apart without war. After the shooting can't be heard for a few days, they don't car in the next deep valley what the hell is going on in Kabul or Peshawar. It's time to build the house again, Son. You're brothers are going after water, fuel, and ammo. Don't talk to the Tally-band, just give them coffee and bid them a good night.
I'm sorry, but what are you basing that on? The Taliban have never existed without war. And some, myself included, would say, their ideology demands they continually create war. We have a case study here. They were left alone in the tribal areas in Pakistan, so what did they do? Start fighting for the next village, the next hill, etc...
Do you think countezero that the Afghan Taliban were able administrators, forging an enduring federal Afghan nation under the proudly-waving Talibanner after the Soviet defeat?
I'm sorry but I don't understand the relevance of that question, and frankly, it looks like nothing more than an attempt to avoid your gaff and answer the question I asked you. You made a statement you cannot base on reality. You further are ignoring the relevant case studies we have.
countezero: "Do you really think the Taliban would fall apart if the US left?" The Taliban falls apart without war. "what are you basing that on? The Taliban have never existed without war" It's true that civil war has never ceased under the Taliban. Their ineptitude at running a modern state has contributed to that tragedy between foreign invasions. The Taliban was not a successful government on the first attempt (regardless of the 9-11 shitstorm, things were clearly going downhill). The Taliban are interstitial to national and tribal structures and faultlines of the region, their sphere of influence centered on the Afghan-Pakistan borderlands. They are good at slipping through the cracks, but not so good at mending them. "You further are ignoring the relevant case studies we have." I'm willing to consider anything you care to submit here on the subject. Do you think that the Afghan Taliban were able administrators when they held power? "I don't understand the relevance of that question" It pertains to whether the world should seriously fear the Taliban as an ascendant state power.
That's a prediction, then. And as such, I would ask you to consider that if it's true, then doesn't the Taliban -- like IRA, Hamas, PKK and others -- have a strong incentive to KEEP fighting? I've given it to you: Tribal lands in Pakistan. They were given the land, agreements were made, and the Taliban decided to strike out again anyway. Hence, the push there now. No, they were terrible. And you assessment in the last post was pretty good. What you seem to not want to consider is that failed administrators in that part of the world are dangerous, and failed administrations very well could seek out war, start it and encourage even more violence. Again, we have the case study of recent history. The Taliban helped destabilize the entire region and provided the sanctuary from which tens of thousands of terrorists fanned out throughout the world. Some of them hijacked airplanes and attacked the US.
As a case study, the IRA: they have quit fighting. How did that happen? By their defeat in battle, and the success of military assault against them? The case that's a study of is "what's wrong with the US news media".
