Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Documentary = Afghanistan: The Price of Revenge

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    Yes, lets compare the situation in 2001 and 2013 shall we:
    2001:

    The Taliban were not carrying out suicide bombings and insurgent attacks against US/NATO forces
    There were no NATO forces around. However, they were doing bombings against US property and civilians on US soil.
    The Taliban condemned the 9/11 attacks and offered to negotiate an extradition of AQ/OBL to a neutral country
    Why to a neutral country?
    The US refuses to negotiate with the Taliban and decides to declare war and occupy the country
    Because Taliban doesn't recognize US.
    2013:

    The Taliban have been carrying out suicide/insurgent attacks against US/NATO forces for over a decade
    In Afghanistan. (And Pakistan, but they are not NATO)

    The Taliban have direct/indirect links with AQ and other similar organizations by virtue of all these organizations fighting the US in Afghanistan
    Nothing new.
    Tens of thousands have died and hundreds of billions spent in waging war in Afghanistan
    It's Taliban to be blamed. They refused the talks back then.
    The US decides to welcome negotiations and has been actively working to get the Taliban to the negotiating table without preconditions such as the complete withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan
    Demanding same as in 2001 - OBL.
    Given the above, my argument that the US should have negotiated in 2001 seems far more reasonable than the decision to negotiate in 2013 ...
    How can you negotiate with someone who refutes your initial reason for talks?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
      Paranoid conspiracy theory and unsubstantiated speculation - if you have any actual evidence that Musharraf and the Pakistani State were aware of OBL's location, feel free to present it.
      I dont have to give you any evidence. The US, Afghan, Indian, UK, NATO intelligence have tons of evidence.

      Perhaps you should read my posts elsewhere on the 'terror wreaked by the Taliban/AQ' - your ignorance of the discussions I partake in elsewhere does not mean I have not (or don't) engage in those discussions.
      You have only justified Talibani actions and that of Pakistani handlers in those posts.

      And of course the typical descent into an irrelevant and irrational rant against Pakistan by a particular breed of Pakistan hating Indian (the Bharat-Rakshak crowd) ....
      There is nothing irrelevant and irrational in that post. It is a fact that no one wants to play sport in your country. You dont expect me to love a nation whose military sends terrorists to kill innocent civilians and attacks its consulates, all because of rabid communal hatred. (in case you ask for proof..please tell us why the Pakistani Govt supports a terrorist organisation with funds - http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/pa...-lateststories)
      Last edited by lemontree; 19 Jun 13,, 08:07.

      Cheers!...on the rocks!!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
        And yes, I am arguing that the US 'lacked a proper understanding of the consequences of the Afghanistan war and the objectives of that war', and in choosing to ignore the offer of dialog/negotiations by the Taliban before deciding on war, the US acted irrationally.
        What is the basis of your aruments?....the death toll?
        The death toll is because of continues support of the Pak militray establisment to the Taliban. The US was kept in Afghanistan to ensure that Pakistan got all the freebees,...the Pak economy was near collapse by then.

        Cheers!...on the rocks!!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
          I initially stated this:

          "Without a proper understanding of the consequences of war, the objectives, and exhausting non-military options to achieve said objectives it is those who 'demand war' that are living in la-la land and such a declaration of war is nothing but an irrational response."


          And I stated this in post# 126 in response to your distortion ( or inability to comprehend simple English) of my comments:

          "Waging war without a proper understanding of the consequences of war and the objectives of war is an irrational act'.

          Where is the disconnect between my two statements?
          And the rest of us have repeatedly told you that those who were in the decision making loop would have evaluated each and every option, including post war assessments, before declaring war, and negotiation with the Taliban was NOT one of them. The US's OPOBJ was to destroy Al-Qaida and its brass, but it still presented the Taliban with some very candid and definitive options, with which they could have saved their arse. To re-quote Parihaka, they were -

          1. Deliver to the US all Al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan
          2. Release all imprisoned foreign nationals
          3. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers
          4. Close immediately every terrorist training camp, and hand over every terrorist and their supporters
          5. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection

          Absolutely legitimate demands considering the severity of the attack. The Taliban didn't take the hint, YOUR Commanders did with their tail between the legs.

          Ranting and raving does not change the fact that you are yet to respond to my point (without completely butchering my comments out of an inability to understand simple English).
          It is clear that YOU are the one here with some serious comprehension problem.
          sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

          Comment


          • This whole stuff is absurd.But even if we follow AM's point,we stil get into something that makes no sense.He says the US and those who blew up the statues from Bamyan shoiled have reached a deal about OBL's trial in a neutral court.Lil' problem is there is absolutely no way a neutral court can be found.Which country could host such a trial.KSA wanted OBL dead since he told every representative of the kingdom to fvck off.Qatari bussinessmen are among the chief financiers of AQ.We have only Pakistan left.

            Wonder why such a short list?If we go to the absurd,let's presume the US agrees to surrender to the Taliban demands.However,the Taliban cannot agree with somebody else,because their regime was recognized only by a handful(in the very literal sense) of nations.
            Those who know don't speak
            He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

            Comment


            • Originally posted by lemontree View Post
              What is the basis of your aruments?....the death toll?
              Over a decade of war, the death toll, economic losses, proliferation of terrorist groups ... what more do you need?
              Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
              https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

              Comment


              • Originally posted by lemontree View Post
                I dont have to give you any evidence. The US, Afghan, Indian, UK, NATO intelligence have tons of evidence.
                So where is it?
                You have only justified Talibani actions and that of Pakistani handlers in those posts.
                Other than support the Taliban call for negotiations over the extradition/trial of OBL and AQ leaders, which 'Talibani actions' have I justified?
                There is nothing irrelevant and irrational in that post. It is a fact that no one wants to play sport in your country. You dont expect me to love a nation whose military sends terrorists to kill innocent civilians and attacks its consulates, all because of rabid communal hatred. (in case you ask for proof..please tell us why the Pakistani Govt supports a terrorist organisation with funds - Pakistan government gives Rs 61 million aid to India's most wanted Hafiz Saeed | NDTV.com)
                Hafiz Saeed has denied any involvement in the Mumbai Attacks, and yes, ranting and raving about cricket to smear Pakistan would place you in the Bharat Rakshak nut-case category.
                Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                  AM,
                  Since OBL is not around anymore (or is he? ) what has changed in US demands?
                  Exactly my point - the Taliban were willing to 'break ties with Al Qaeda' back then, and offered to do so publicly provided the US engage with them, provide evidence and/or have a trial conducted in a neutral country. So 'negotiating with the Taliban' made far more sense in 2001 than it does in 2013.
                  Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                  https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                    2001:
                    There were no NATO forces around. However, they were doing bombings against US property and civilians on US soil.
                    Wrong - that would be Al Qaeda, not the Taliban.

                    Why to a neutral country?
                    Why not?
                    Because Taliban doesn't recognize US.
                    You mean the US does not recognize the Taliban, and what exactly has changed on that count now?
                    2013:
                    In Afghanistan. (And Pakistan, but they are not NATO)
                    Which means that the Taliban have been directly perpetrating attacks against US/NATO forces for a decade now, whereas they were not doing so in 2001
                    Nothing new.
                    There are operational links between the two in carrying out attacks on US/NATO interests now, whereas there were no such operational links in carrying out attacks on US interests in 2001 and earlier.
                    It's Taliban to be blamed. They refused the talks back then.
                    The Taliban offered talks, the US refused.
                    Demanding same as in 2001 - OBL.
                    Then why did the US not negotiate in 2001?
                    How can you negotiate with someone who refutes your initial reason for talks?
                    The US never made its case through negotiations with the Taliban.
                    Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                    https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Deltacamelately View Post
                      And the rest of us have repeatedly told you that those who were in the decision making loop would have evaluated each and every option, including post war assessments, before declaring war, and negotiation with the Taliban was NOT one of them.
                      The fact that the US has decided to negotiate with the Taliban after a decade plus of war would indicate that those in the decision making loop in the US did not properly evaluate all options and consequences in 2001, and made an irrational decision.
                      The US's OPOBJ was to destroy Al-Qaida and its brass, but it still presented the Taliban with some very candid and definitive options, with which they could have saved their arse. To re-quote Parihaka, they were -

                      1. Deliver to the US all Al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan
                      2. Release all imprisoned foreign nationals
                      3. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers
                      4. Close immediately every terrorist training camp, and hand over every terrorist and their supporters
                      5. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection
                      The US made demands - it did not engage in negotiations to convince/cajole/coerce the Taliban into compliance, and therefore acted irrationally in declaring war.
                      It is clear that YOU are the one here with some serious comprehension problem.
                      Given that you did not elaborate on the perceived dissonance in my two sets of comments, I believe it is you suffering from an inability to comprehend simple English.
                      Last edited by Agnostic Muslim; 19 Jun 13,, 14:40.
                      Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                      https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by lemontree View Post
                        I dont have to give you any evidence. The US, Afghan, Indian, UK, NATO intelligence have tons of evidence.
                        It appears that your hatred is getting the best of your judgement.

                        US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said there is no evidence senior people in Pakistan knew that Osama Bin Laden lived so close to Islamabad.
                        BBC News - Clinton exonerates Pakistan over Osama Bin Laden

                        This is as high up as it goes in the food chain, its the American Secretary of State.

                        Comment


                        • AM, the U.S. wanted OBL. Obviously. But we also wanted to put some hurt on those that sheltered, supported, and probably encouraged him and his jihadi chronies. The Taliban.

                          Why should we "negotiate" with the enemy, especially at that moment in history?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by notorious_eagle View Post
                            It appears that your hatred is getting the best of your judgement.



                            BBC News - Clinton exonerates Pakistan over Osama Bin Laden

                            This is as high up as it goes in the food chain, its the American Secretary of State.
                            Lets not take the already existing dis-ingenuity to ridiculous levels.

                            Not finding evidence is hardly exonerating. Its more like saying : we tried finding enough evidence to fry us some azz, but we didn't find any"

                            Now I am waiting for someone to throw down a "lawyerly" definition of exonerate
                            "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by antimony View Post
                              Lets not take the already existing dis-ingenuity to ridiculous levels.

                              Not finding evidence is hardly exonerating. Its more like saying : we tried finding enough evidence to fry us some azz, but we didn't find any"

                              Now I am waiting for someone to throw down a "lawyerly" definition of exonerate
                              Let me flip this argument around

                              Lets for argument sake say that Clinton publicly accused the GOP of sheltering OBL without any evidence, you would be yelling at the top of your lungs and would probably swear your life by Clinton's accusations. But in this case, you have dismissed her statement simply because it does not suit your point of view. Its innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Chogy View Post
                                AM, the U.S. wanted OBL. Obviously. But we also wanted to put some hurt on those that sheltered, supported, and probably encouraged him and his jihadi chronies. The Taliban.

                                Why should we "negotiate" with the enemy, especially at that moment in history?
                                The Taliban were not the 'enemy' in 2001 - an 'enemy' would not have made public statements condemning the 9/11 attacks:

                                ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Afghanistan's Taliban ambassador to Pakistan has condemned the string of astonishing terrorist attacks on the United States.

                                "We want to tell the American children that Afghanistan feels your pain. We hope the courts find justice," ambassador Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef said in a statement in Pakistan after America was hit by a series of attacks that have been called the worst since Pearl Harbor.
                                CNN.com - Taliban diplomat condemns attacks - September 12, 2001
                                Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                                https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X