Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 196

Thread: Documentary = Afghanistan: The Price of Revenge

  1. #76
    Senior Contributor Agnostic Muslim's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Dec 07
    Location
    Michigan/Lahore
    Posts
    2,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Deltacamelately View Post
    My Goodness. Are you really that naïve?

    What do you think the Indian public wanted after Mumbai? That the American leaders had the stomach and resources for going to war and their Indian counterparts didn't, doesn't change the fact, that responding with war to such attacks on soft civilian targets, is a very legit military goal.
    Lashing out to merely 'extract revenge' without understanding the consequences of 'lashing out', and what the long term impact will be, is an irrational act borne out of an irrational emotional response.
    Last edited by Agnostic Muslim; 14 Jun 13, at 16:08.
    Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
    https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

  2. #77
    Senior Contributor Agnostic Muslim's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Dec 07
    Location
    Michigan/Lahore
    Posts
    2,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Why? The Taliban already chosen sides well before Africa.
    Because the Taliban's public position after the 9/11 attacks clearly indicated a desire to assist the US.

    ''We would be ready to hand him over to a third country,'' said Maulvi Abdul Kabir, the second in command to the Taliban's supreme leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar. ''It can be negotiated provided the U.S. gives us evidence and the Taliban are assured that the country is neutral and will not be influenced by the United States.''

    We're not Pakistani cowards.
    No, you are just irrational war-mongering tyrants.
    Your point is to allow OBL time and effort to set up his defences or at the very least makes his escape. Taliban apologists.
    What defenses? Were you afraid he would buy the S-300/S-400 from the Russians and deploy it around his hideouts? Again, pointing out how irrational and flawed US policy was in invading Afghanistan and refusing to exhaust the opportunity for negotiations provided by the Taliban does not make one a 'Taliban apologist'.
    Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
    https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

  3. #78
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    Because the Taliban's public position after the 9/11 attacks clearly indicated a desire to assist the US.

    ''We would be ready to hand him over to a third country,'' said Maulvi Abdul Kabir, the second in command to the Taliban's supreme leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar. ''It can be negotiated provided the U.S. gives us evidence and the Taliban are assured that the country is neutral and will not be influenced by the United States.''
    "...a desire to assist the U.S."? "Clearly"? Wow...


    "We would be ready to hand him over to a third country" - Which would've assisted the U.S. how? Which third country?

    "It can be negotiated..." - A polite euphemism for massive bribes

    "...provided the U.S. gives us evidence" - The evidence was there, starting with al-Qa'ida declaration of war against the U.S. in 1998 and subsequent terrorist operations. The Taliban wasn't looking for evidence. They were stalling for time and bribes. They knew damn good and well he'd done it. Why else was he in Afghanistan? Vacation? He was on camera nonchalantly acknowledging the news when the story broke.

    "and the Taliban are assured that the country is neutral and will not be influenced by the United States" - Ah, the other shoe drops. In other words, "after you bribe the shit out of us, we'll hand him off to another country of our own choosing and then the U.S. can start this farce all over again."



    "clearly indicated a desire to assist the US."

    That has got to be the most fucked up claim I've seen in years. I don't know if it's naïve , willfully obtuse, just plain stupid or all of the above. And I'm dumber for having read it.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  4. #79
    Senior Contributor Agnostic Muslim's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Dec 07
    Location
    Michigan/Lahore
    Posts
    2,459
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    "...a desire to assist the U.S."? "Clearly"? Wow...


    "We would be ready to hand him over to a third country" - Which would've assisted the U.S. how? Which third country?

    "It can be negotiated..." - A polite euphemism for massive bribes
    And how much has the US alone spent on the war and occupation of Afghanistan so far? What were all those 'suitcases of money' the CIA was delivering to Karzai, his cronies and various other crooks in the Afghan government?
    "...provided the U.S. gives us evidence" - The evidence was there, starting with al-Qa'ida declaration of war against the U.S. in 1998 and subsequent terrorist operations. The Taliban wasn't looking for evidence. They were stalling for time and bribes. They knew damn good and well he'd done it. Why else was he in Afghanistan? Vacation? He was on camera nonchalantly acknowledging the news when the story broke.
    If the evidence was 'there', then what was wrong with officially providing it to the Taliban and putting OBL on trial?

    "and the Taliban are assured that the country is neutral and will not be influenced by the United States" - Ah, the other shoe drops. In other words, "after you bribe the shit out of us, we'll hand him off to another country of our own choosing and then the U.S. can start this farce all over again."
    With respect to the bribes, see my response above, and a see nothing wrong with choosing a country for the trial of OBL that would have been 'neutral and not influenced by the US'.
    "clearly indicated a desire to assist the US."

    That has got to be the most fucked up claim I've seen in years. I don't know if it's naïve , willfully obtuse, just plain stupid or all of the above. And I'm dumber for having read it.
    A fail to see any justification for your criticism other than paranoia and a desire to cling to the official US narrative to avoid accepting that the US direction taken in Afghanistan in 2001 was flawed and created a cluster f***.
    Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
    https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

  5. #80
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    And how much has the US alone spent on the war and occupation of Afghanistan so far? What were all those 'suitcases of money' the CIA was delivering to Karzai, his cronies and various other crooks in the Afghan government?
    I'm not saying I'm not disgusted by the massive amounts of blood and treasure spent in Afghanistan. I am, thoroughly.

    However, the last time I checked, Karzai was fighting al-Qaida, not sheltering them.

    Small difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    If the evidence was 'there', then what was wrong with officially providing it to the Taliban and putting OBL on trial?
    As I said, the Taliban were no more interested in evidence of OBL's guilt than a conspiracy theorist is interested in proof that he's wrong.

    And how was OBL supposed to be put on trial? Where was the trial to take place? Afghanistan? Pakistan? That unnamed third-country?


    Quote Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    With respect to the bribes, see my response above, and a see nothing wrong with choosing a country for the trial of OBL that would have been 'neutral and not influenced by the US'.
    Of course you don't see anything wrong with it. You have utterly failed to read or comprehend what I wrote. A third-country was unacceptable to the United States because, as I said, it would've meant starting all over again. Suppose that third country would've been North Korea? Or Cuba?

    Assuming they actually turned OBL over to a third-country in the first place!

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    A fail to see any justification for your criticism other than paranoia and a desire to cling to the official US narrative to avoid accepting that the US direction taken in Afghanistan in 2001 was flawed and created a cluster f***.
    I've already freely acknowledged that the long-term US war plans for Afghanistan were flawed. But keep flogging that dead horse if you want.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  6. #81
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Assuming they actually turned OBL over to a third-country in the first place!
    Oh, they would. Translation: allow OBL to escape.

  7. #82
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Dec 06
    Posts
    1,138
    AM is talking as if the Taliban and AQ are separate mutually exclusive entities. That is simply not true. AQ fighters were being trained in the same camps in Afghanistan as the Taliban fighters. The two organizations were joined at the hip. Taliban giving assurances that they will kick out OBL and AQ is ridiculous.

    If the evidence was 'there', then what was wrong with officially providing it to the Taliban and putting OBL on trial?
    Yeah, India tried that with Hafeez Saeed. His grandson will probably die of old age before the "trial" gets over.
    Last edited by Firestorm; 14 Jun 13, at 19:53.

  8. #83
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    Taliban giving assurances that they will kick out OBL and AQ is ridiculous.
    Nonsense! The Taliban were completely trustworthy and reasonable...especially when it came to assisting the West with known Islamic terrorists in their midst.


    (According to AgnosticMuslim, that is)
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  9. #84
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,160
    For anyone to do anything with the Taliban,means recognizing the Taliban as the legitimate government of A-stan.Which couldn't be done,unless you're Pakistani or wahhabi.
    AM,you tried to pull a lawyerish trick earlier.The US demands on the Taliban may have been in the wake of 9/11.But Bin Laden declared war on US before 9/11 and the Taliban hosted him before that,as well.The US responded with cruise missiles,initially.The war started before 9/11,it only got more intense after that.
    That the Western nations are prepared to negociate today with the enemy means only abject surrender and is a testament to the sorry state of our countries.The war did not managed to forge a real internal harmony,not even in US.As for the rest of the Western nations,there was no case of such a dedicated effort from the start.That the war was carried this way is only a symptom.We need to cure the internal disease before carrying the fight to the outside enemy.Tyrants and warmongers you said.I can deal with words like that.But I'd like to see how many will deal with those words becoming reality.
    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

  10. #85
    Contributor
    Join Date
    04 Nov 06
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    Indian whining about the US doing that which they (India) cannot accomplish is nothing new ...
    Oh, Believe me India has managed to achieve something which it would have never got with invading Pakistan. All by staying out of Pakistan.

    US, the greatest supporter of Pakistan , is now the most hated in Pakistan!

    Till today it was US that saved Pakistan's bacon.

    Post 2014.....no one is helping Pakistan.

  11. #86
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Dec 06
    Posts
    1,138
    Quote Originally Posted by n21 View Post
    Oh, Believe me India has managed to achieve something which it would have never got with invading Pakistan. All by staying out of Pakistan.

    US, the greatest supporter of Pakistan , is now the most hated in Pakistan!
    India achieved jackshit! Regardless of who is hated more, Pakistan can only hurt India not the US.

    Post 2014.....no one is helping Pakistan.
    You would be naive to believe that. All that hate for the US conveniently disappears when they accept all the US aid. It also doesn't seem to stop the US from providing it.

  12. #87
    Patron
    Join Date
    15 Jan 11
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Does this mean the Pak army has sidelined itself in the eyes of your public ?

    Was thinking the other day the best thing the Pak army can do is not make too much noise right now, given all the protests going on in the muslim world.

    Democratic and peaceful transition of power is the right thing to do.
    PA after the elections in 2008 have largely left the governance and policy making to the political institutions. Although the political institutions have failed miserably to provide any governance or design important policies, PA hasn't stepped in. PA has no reason to fear because they still enjoy overwhelming support of the masses. If my memory serves me right, the last poll conducted suggested that the PA had an approval rating of 80%, far more compared to any politician. PA would be more than happy to stay in the barracks if the politicians do their jobs.

  13. #88
    Patron
    Join Date
    15 Jan 11
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Goodness me

    The economy largely took off Post 2002 because of Musharraf's economic policies. Economic liberalization, fiscal/monetary discipline, deregulation, loosening of private credit, privatization, sound macro-economic policies, removal of international sanctions and most importantly placing experienced technocrats in important positions. These were the major factors that helped Pakistan's economy became more productive and grow at an average rate of 6.3%.

    The $20 billion aid you are talking about, around $14 billion was expensed to the Army for the cost of the operations conducted in FATAville and only around $6 billion was invested in the economy. Do you honestly believe $6 billion spread out over a timeframe of 10 years can make a country like Pakistan grow at a rate of 6.3%? The removal of sanctions played a much bigger role in kick starting the economy compared to the puny aid that was doled out. If aid alone could drive sustainable economic growth, Afghanistan would be Malaysia by now. Anyways, don't want to derail the topic further. If you want to further read up on Pakistan's economy during that time frame, read this article written by a very renowned Economist. Hope it helps

    The economy under Pervez Musharraf -DAWN - Business; October 17, 2007

  14. #89
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    You asked what was the benefit.

    I showed it to you.

    You really think Mushi's miracle would take place if US was not siding with him? Are you deliberately forgetting to add World Bank, Japan, UK, IMF...

    What about foreign investments? What about those lifted sanctions you mentioned?

    Yes, you'd fare much better without US backing.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

  15. #90
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,163
    Quote Originally Posted by notorious_eagle View Post
    PA after the elections in 2008 have largely left the governance and policy making to the political institutions. Although the political institutions have failed miserably to provide any governance or design important policies, PA hasn't stepped in. PA has no reason to fear because they still enjoy overwhelming support of the masses. If my memory serves me right, the last poll conducted suggested that the PA had an approval rating of 80%, far more compared to any politician.
    Just recently they snatched away their old boy Mushy from the judicial system. You got to be kidding me.

    Quote Originally Posted by notorious_eagle View Post
    PA would be more than happy to stay in the barracks if the politicians do their jobs.
    In a democracy, that is not their choice to make. Indian poltis are as much scumbag as Pakistani poltis are, the IA and the rest of the defense establishment does not peep in, that is a good thing
    "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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Ayn Rand’s Revenge
    By xinhui in forum International Economy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30 Oct 09,, 21:32
  2. Canadian CBC documentary about Afghanistan
    By yoda9999 in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04 Apr 08,, 23:21
  3. Documentary Film on Afghanistan 1988
    By Wiseman in forum Warfare in the Modern Age
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01 Jul 07,, 16:13
  4. Afghanistan SF documentary
    By giggs88 in forum Multimedia & Jukebox room
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 20 Nov 05,, 20:58
  5. Al-Qaeda calls for revenge
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09 May 05,, 19:02

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

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