SEAL Team Six Members Killed in Afghanistan Crash

Source? :m:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In the late period of the war, of an estimated 45,000 force fighting on the side of the Taliban, only 14,000 were Afghans. (wiki)(the Telegraph)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And today? You insist the Taliban are foreigners, I don`t see the evidence in your sources. Also where is the source for 400 000 Afghan deaths?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you don't actually think that "all occupations are bad," then. Apparently, it's only permanent occupations and/or those that fail to contribute to a lasting PEACE.

Except let's note that those criterion are only evaluable with the benefit of substantial hindsight - on the scale of decades, at a minimum. This means you have no way to evaluate the standing of pretty much any present-day occupation.

Your assertion about Okinawa raises the question: you are counting now as "occupations" any stationing of troops on foreign soil, even in the presence of a recognized, legitimate sovereign government that explicitly agrees to said stationing?

Because that means that Germany is likewise "still occupied," along with a whole slew of other countries. Are you sure you wish to pursue this redefinition of "occupation?"

? Well if you don't disapprove of the poast-war occupations, then that question as to "preferable" is moot.

Although your insistence that temporariness legitimates those occupations, along with your insistence that the troops presence in Okinawa (and so, presumably, Germany) amounts to permanent occupation make that into something of a muddle. So, I guess: pick a position, and then answer from there.

Okay, so there's another class of occupations that you hold to be a good thing - in principle, and apparently sometimes in practice as well.

So we're down to permanent, non-UN occupations that don't end up contributing to lasting peace, that are objectionable. No complaints about that from me - although it does throw a wrench into your easy categorical rhetoric about "all occupations are bad," of course.

"Become?" I'm wondering when the time was, when those factors were lesser in the UN?

Last I checked, yeah.

And the various other empires? The Soviet one, the US one, the Japanese one, etc. etc. etc.?

It did, didn't it?

Maybe it's a bit much to expect that said "rethink" would result in a perfect system, or that politics wouldn't continue to be politics.

We did that too, didn't we? The UN, the destruction of the colonial empires, the 100+ new sovereign states, etc. Is your complaint that they didn't manage to erect a perfect utopia? The current state of affairs is an improvement over the pre-UN phase, no?

That an extremely superficial basis for comparison - you're always going to have oppression in the world. It's simply the nature of politics and interest. If all non-utopian world orders are held to be thereby morally equivalent, then there's nothing for you to do but stand to the side tut-tutting while politicians rightly ignore you.

Genuine progress is going to require a more insightful, incisive basis for evaluating the world order. "We didn't get a perfect utopia out of the deal" gets us nowhere.

But a lot fewer of such, than there used to be. You're telling me that the triumph of a polity that was openly feeding millions of people into industrial death camps is morally equivalent to today's geopolitics, because... a couple of countries in the middle east have problems?

Which ones were the pointless ones?

Either way, it wouldn't even come close to the number of civilians the Nazis alone wiped out in a handful of years.

Well, no. Australia is not a "crossroads" by any sensible definition, for example. This is a specific geographic property - the Middle East is right smack in the middle of a bunch of different regions with different priorities and interests and values.

What's the point in evading my point this way? If you don't have a response, just don't respond.

It's not hard to fathom - I'm asking what the justification is for making nations (apparently now; a minute ago it was regions) the fundamental units of sovereignty? Other than their determination to be such, and their power to back it up, that is - morally, why does Libyan national self-determination override my basic commitment to any given Libyan as a fellow human being?

Meanwhile, your maxim there ("what happens in Libya stays in Libya") is a two-way street, let's note. For that to work, it's not sufficient that other nations refrain from intervening - Libyans themselves have to ensure that their affairs actually "stay in Libya" and do not affect anyone else. Which isn't really possible - and as soon as events in Libya have effects on other nations, the whole maxim goes right out the window.

Nations are not isolated islands that do not affect one another. This ideal of unitary nations, each managing its own affairs in isolation, is just that. The reality is interdependence, growing every day.

Because the ultimate goal is not actually to minimize interference between nations. It's to advance things like peace, standard of living, human rights, etc. Non-interference is, at best, an instrumental ideal, valuable because it is held to help advance actual first-order goals.

I realize that you have an argument to that effect - that internal political processes are supposed to eventually resolve all problems, absent interference - but of course I don't entirely buy it. And neither do you, as evidenced by your embrace of various forms of "helpful" occupation at the front of that last post.

Remains to be seen, doesn't it?

But it can be credibly argued that it has saved a not-insubstantial number of civilian lives already. And taken a dictator - and so, the entire idea of dictatorship as a durable or desirable model - down a peg or two.

The goals have been stated clearly by the participants, and you and I have already been over this repeatedly elsewhere. Please stop with the annoying tactic of rebooting old discussions.

According to Qadaffi, sure. I don't put much stock in his claims, though.

Question is which of them is more legitimate as a representative of the Libyan nation, and more likely to put Libya on a positive path, and not which one is pure as the driven snow.

Maybe not, but it is in some cases the only such process available.

I don't think you know what "your truly" means - in that sentence, you're saying that you (StrawDog) started and rejected the AU and other initiatives.

But, no, nobody forgot those. They weren't credible then, and they haven't become any more so in hindsight.

Do your own fucking homework.

Like, for example, revisiting one of the several old threads wherein I already presented you with such, instead of attempting another cheap reboot.

And there was no "last couple of hundred years" qualifier in your earlier categorical statements, note.

I'll thank you not to confuse your own ignorance and unwillingness to substantiate your assertions with a limitation on my part, nor to browbeat with these juvenile "you're a dumb brainwashed westerner" flames. Your behavior is offensive, and you should bear in mind that I (and pretty much any other adult) view retorts consisting of such self-serving, baiting horseshit as clear expressions of defensiveness and insecurity.

The parts of that quote that I actually attributed to you (half of it was a suggestion from me to you, as to which line you ought to pursue), were most definitely accurate paraphrases of your own clear-cut, forcefully vocalized positions.

 

Prima fascia - Peace

Occupation leads to resistance leads to conflict leads to human toll. One does not need hindsight to figure the obvious.

Come on. Legitimate? Sovereign? Back to the crux of Empire. After WW2 and the needless atrocities committed by nukes, the US installed, maintained and enforced/s the pro US Japanese political system. Still current, as reflected in Okinawa, but with the first waves of resistance now appearing.

Empire=Garrisons/Outposts=Domination/Occupation. Just like all the Empires before. It is what it is.

The one is (hopefully) non political and humanitarian, and the other is political and agenda driven. See the difference?

Good question.

The Japanese one was crushed and the Soviet Empire was half baked even though it was already on the hit list of the aspiring only empire.

Of course not.

One would expect a movement at least in the right moral direction.

Certainly. Although the present ME military conflicts were entirely avoidable. Why settle for less?

If human kind does not strive for and evolve towards peace we face extinction. Period.

Of course. Where should one start -another invasion, or with a withdrawal?

The polity that gained such triumph over gross evil, has long since lost any moral victory via the persistent culture of war making and blind eying selected gross human rights abuses, such as we see in Palestine and Saudi Arabia.

All of them.

Not to mention Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden, etc. BTW, fascism and totalitarianism is fast closing in on those that are wide asleep.

And Vietnam was a crossroads, as was Korea, as was Serbia, as was Nicaragua, as was Haiti, etc.

Well, one would have to question motive, and ask why you feel more human affinity and commitment to Libyans, rather than to Bharainis, Syrians, Palestinians, Yemenis or Saudis?

As in refugees?

And to install friendly pro Western governments that are happy to part with resources?

One has to strip the distractions away in order to focus on nationhood.

Not really. What may have started as a brief intervention to keep planes on the ground and protect civilians, has become a partisan military backing and collaboration with an unknown and unproven opposition, ever bit as extreme as Gadaffi.

The facts around Gaddafis alleged atrocities have not been clearly established and which in any event has since been nullified by countless civilian casualties due to NATO ordinance.

Perhaps, but it also send a clear message that some Dictators are acceptable and some are not.

That is the Western-centric stock answer. Yet the West was only to happy to accept oil sales from this lying rogue.

Exactly, that is the prime question, and if the people of Libya can prevail without interference, we may yet find that answer.

Perhaps, but not the norm as we see today, and common terminology such as "all options are on the table".

Of course they were credible. Outside the Western worldview cocoon that is. Much better to use the all options on said table.

Does your mother know you swear thus?

Now there is, why the frustration?

If you are going to make nasty allegations, you had better point out exactly where I stated such.

I am quite comfortable in my skin thank you Dr Phil. I find aggression and military culture offensive. Perhaps that's where we differ?

 

Occam's Razor, my friend, Occam's Razor. The simplest, most straightforward explanation is generally the correct one. In this case, the amount of coverup needed to fabricate this story makes it less likely than the truth.

 

I believe you err somewhat Sir.

 

Many of them are foreign jihadists and many more are from Pakistan. Do I really have to list all the crimes of the Taliban? They were in a civil war with the Northern Alliance, mass graves were found from when they massacred the native Hazara, (15 incidents according to the UN), in addition to murdering thousands publicly for violations of sharia.

 

Looks like we can put the conspiracy theories to rest:

Pentagon Releases Names of SEALs​

~String

 

Conspiracy theories are easy. . .

In that regard, it is likewise, just as easy to spread disinformation and stick your head back in the sand.

But paying attention to the facts? Putting two and two together and dealing with it? That's a lot harder to do. And an intelligent, caring and ethical person that is concerned about the common person and civilization does it any how.

In this link, it would help if someone spoke Urdo, but the full translation is available.
Breaking News: “Bin Laden” Heroes Probably Murdered to Keep Them Quiet

And apparently it was a National Guard Chinook that was shot down, all very fishy.
A National Guard Chinook with a Full Load of Seals and Special Ops?

These SEALS may not have been at Abbotabad, but they would've have known that their fallen comrades never came back from Abbotabad.

I believe this incident will be enough to keep any of the remaining team silent if there is any grumbling, restlessness, or hard feelings about the country not knowing about what happened to their fallen comrades at Abbotabad. Fear is a powerful motivator.

 

You've been caught out so many times talking nonsense regarding Afghanistan/Iraq.

You take it so damn far as well. Don't you care about the accuracy of your posts? I'm guessing you just don't give a sh.t

 

At no time where the were the Taliban not Aghans. The Wikipedia article on the Taliban is a poorly written article. Sources for the misleading statement in the Wikipedia article wqhich you stretched even further were footnotes 13 and 15. Footnote 13 is your Telegraph article which may or may not be accurate and is about a specific place and time and in no way attempts to say that the Taliban are not Afghans. The Telegraph article says "An estimated 25,000 Taliban troops, including some 10,000 Arab, Pakistani and Central Asian Islamic militants are now likely to step up their offensive."

Footnote 15 has a dead link and would require a bit more work to follow.

The Taliban belong to the Pashtun nation more than they belong to the Afghan nation or the Pakistani nation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Above map from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtun_people
Article says there are 27 million Pushtun in Pakistan and 13 million Pashtun in Afghanistan.

The Taliban is not one thing. They are different in each time and place. The Taliban were one thing before the Pakistani ISI started backing them. They were another thing when they were defeating other Pashtun warlords with Pakistani backing.

They were something else again when they became the head of a coalition mostly comprised of forces supplied by the very Pashtun Warlords they had once fought. This Taliban led Pashtun coalition attempted to conquer all of Afghanistan relying mostly on Pakistan for backing but also with the backing of Bill Clinton and the USA which was taking orders from Unocal, and with the backing of Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda.

The Taliban became something else when the Tajiks and Uzbek warlords were kicking their butts with the help of US air power. The local Pashtun warlords that sided with the Taliban because they were the dominant Pashtun force abandoned them.

The Taliban became something else after their defeat militarily and politically when Afghans had hopes that the Karzai government and the USA would improve Afghanistan.

The Taliban have become something else again in the last five years.


It is generally accepted that the Taliban improved law and order in Pashtunistan prior to 9-11 when they were an improvement over leaders like Hekmatyar. Where Hekmatyar's coalition was Islamic extremists they were also amoral lawless bandits. The Taliban were less likely to be overly moralistic Muslims one minute and then amoral bandits the next minute than they Pushtun warlords and clan leaders that they replaced were.

In the link below the CFR reports on the Taliban being appreciated for relative honesty http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/taliban-afghanistan/p10551.

The Hazara are Shia, Horrors heresy. It is not surprising that they were treated badly by the Taliban. The Saudi fundamentalist influence is a bad influence. Pakistan's politics using hatred of India to create acceptance for bad Pakistani governance is also a bad influence.

I think Dostom's Uzbek army was the worst most war crime prone army but I was very influenced by one book and never got the counterbalance or discerned the author's bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rashid_Dostum

The USA told the Afghans to make Karzai their leader and they complied. Who was Karzai before 9-11? Karzai was Unocal's ambassador to the Taliban. Khalizad also worked for Unocal. Unocal told Bill Clinton what US Afghan policy would be and Unocal also had influence over the Bush administration.

When the Taliban were committing war crimes against the Hazara the USA supported the Taliban. Unocal wanted a pipeline across Afghanistan but the pipeline would require security and stability. The Taliban were the best hope to create security and stability so the Unocal and Unocal's client the US government supported the Taliban against their Hazara, Tajik and Uzbek enemies.

Russia, Iran, and Central Asian nations backed the opposition to Afghan the Taliban while Pakistan, Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia and the USA backed the Taliban. The US did not do much for the Taliban but the Clinton administration was definately on the Taliban's side in the civil war. Negotiations between the Taliban and Unocal were not going well so the Bush administration had some problem with the Taliban prior to 9-11.

There are many Pakistani Pashtun fighting for the Taliban but there is no question that the vast majority of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are Afghan. More in doubt is whether the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are Taliban. Is a militia that would fight any foreign Pashtun or non-Pashtun attempt to take over their Pashtun valley Taliban?

The following links say the Afghan Army units attempting to occupy Pashtun lands have very few Pashtun soldiers. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704621204575487720827425774.html
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/02/19/afghan-army-lacks-enough-pashtuns/
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2009/11/28/tajik-grip-on-afghan-army-signals-new-ethnic-war/
http://kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article51745


"The Afghan Army Disperses and Pashtun Soldiers Join the Taliban

Afghan army near collapse due to ethnic discrimination

Monday 24 January 2011, by Basir Ahang "

The above quote is from the kabulpress article.

Who is more foreign to a Southern Afghanistan Pashtun, a Tajik from northern Afghanistan or a Pashtun from Pakistan?

For the most part the Taliban fighters are very local.

Quote below from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66350/seth-g-jones/it-takes-the-villages?page=show
"Despite these regional variations, power tends to remain local in Pashtun areas, which is where the insurgency is largely being fought. Pashtuns may identify with their tribe, subtribe, clan, qawm, family, or village based on where they are at the time, who they are interacting with, and the specific event. Pashtunwali, the Pashtun code of behavior, shapes daily life through obligations of honor, hospitality, revenge, and providing sanctuary. Jirgas and shuras -- which are decision-making councils -- remain instrumental at the local level, where state legal institutions are virtually nonexistent."

 

I think that is pretty much spot on nirakar.

Some people know nothing about the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

So, your argument that the Taliban aren't foreign is that ethnic identity trumps country of origin? At the same time there are Taliban foreign fighter facilitators who's job it is to bring jihadists from Iran and other places to fight the US in Afghanistan.

---------
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/captu...ighters-converging-pakistan/story?id=13674549