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

  • lemontree
    replied
    Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
    Regardless of whether he was a willing accomplice, Mullah Omar knowingly chose his path and that of the Taliban government... to harbor Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda .
    Just to add - Mulla Omar, is an illiterate bumb pesant, taking orders from the ISI.

    Leave a comment:


  • lemontree
    replied
    Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    Over a decade of war, the death toll, economic losses, proliferation of terrorist groups ... what more do you need?
    What economic loss?...there was nothing in Afghanistan except poppy plantations that fueled the purses of PA generals.
    So where is it?
    Pakistan is not trusted by the US/NATO...that says a lot.
    Other than support the Taliban call for negotiations over the extradition/trial of OBL and AQ leaders, which 'Talibani actions' have I justified?
    See the highlighted part of your post below.
    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.
    You being an apologist for a terrorist puts you in the Pakistani terrorist category.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mihais
    replied
    Weird.Minskaya played the archeologist,digging up articles from the times of Assurbanipal.Which is common knowledge around the world.Yet AM just didn't knew.
    Just to point the irony,we're also told the entire NATO is deaf,dumb and blind wrt sanctuaries in Pakistan.Not enough evidence

    I'm still a firm believer in the idea that yelling at people works.
    Last edited by Mihais; 20 Jun 13,, 04:38.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    You should have directed your energies at digging out facts to refute my argument, as Minskaya did, rather than simply hurling abuse and 'getting exasperated'.
    I'm terribly sorry, it's difficult to refute "1+1=3" And just as pointless. So, for that matter, is debating with you.

    Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    Maybe you should have done the same and provided the excerpts from that interview to refute my contention about the Taliban desire to negotiate with the US several posts ago.
    Once again, you're asking me to prove things like gravity. I gave up on you days ago. I'm simply laughing at you now. And in case you missed it, the vast majority of the board is too.

    Or as people smarter than me have described you: "AM is an obnoxious liar, a facile rewriter of recent history"..."he's has taken obfuscation and dissemblance to heretofore unimagined heights."

    I could only dream of writing so well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Agnostic Muslim
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    With the truckload of fanciful bullshit you're spewing, it's no wonder Mihais is exasperated....not to mention the rest of us.
    You should have directed your energies at digging out facts to refute my argument, as Minskaya did, rather than simply hurling abuse and 'getting exasperated'.

    Would it have changed your position one iota? I doubt it. You've never been much on facts.
    Perhaps you should have read post#169 before spouting off half-cocked about what I would or would not do.

    Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass you'd have known that all along.
    Maybe you should have done the same and provided the excerpts from that interview to refute my contention about the Taliban desire to negotiate with the US several posts ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • antimony
    replied
    Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
    Regardless of whether he was a willing accomplice, Mullah Omar knowingly chose his path and that of the Taliban government... to harbor Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda .
    Source: The Guardian
    I have read somewhere (have to dig out the link) that Osama was counting on the Taliban not to out him, due to the service he rendered them by neutralizing Ahmad Shah Massoud

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    I prefer to think there's actually smart people in the White House. Certainly the tail bunnies have evolved and allegiances changed over the years. Most of the originals are dead, a few in hiding and those remaining in Quetta are far more political animals than circa 2001. As demonstrated by their activities they've come to regard Pakistan as just as great an enemy as the US.
    Afghanistan has had eight years of, in context, stability with an entire generation growing up in the urban areas with a freedom and access to resources not seen since the fall of the soviet backed regime. As OoE points out, the ANA, which while not stellar, is certainly proficient enough and will certainly be well funded enough to 'go all medieval' on the tail bunnies with the withdrawal of the US/NATO constraints.
    If these negotiations succeed in giving the tail bunnies a degree of autonomy in the southern provinces but under a watchful brief by the Afghan govt. (and the odd drone) then the TB are more likely to concentrate on solidifying their gains in Afghanistan's southern provinces and Pakistan's western ones, and given Pakistan's proclivities are more likely set for conflict against Pakistan than against Afghanistan: a kind of sub-state, straddling two borders and ignoring the Durand Line.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    This ranting, abusive post of yours would suggest that the individual requiring a 'break' and 'taking a breath' is you.
    With the truckload of fanciful bullshit you're spewing, it's no wonder Mihais is exasperated....not to mention the rest of us.

    Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    I was not aware of that interview
    Would it have changed your position one iota? I doubt it. You've never been much on facts.

    Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    and it certainly contradicts the statement made by the Taliban Ambassador about extraditing OBL.
    Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass you'd have known that all along.

    The job of an ambassador is "diplomacy"...from the Greek word δίπλωμα meaning "lie your ass off, even if current events or your nation's leadership are saying the exact opposite"

    See also Valerian Zorin and Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf for textbook examples.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    The fact that the US has not put a whole lot of effort into this tells me the US government have the same feeling. The bloodbath is coming and no one cares enough to stop it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The US is negotiating with the Taliban to get them to surrender before the ANA goes on a bloodlust. The US ain't afraid the Taliban is going to win. They're afraid that Taliban women and children will get slaughtered.
    I believe you are correct, Colonel, or at a minimum there will be an extended period of violence. But my give-a-shit factor just isn't where it once was.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    The US is negotiating with the Taliban to get them to surrender before the ANA goes on a bloodlust. The US ain't afraid the Taliban is going to win. They're afraid that Taliban women and children will get slaughtered.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied
    Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    So what exactly has changed between 2001 and 2013 in terms of the Taliban and Mullah Omar that makes negotiating with the Taliban (ostensibly with the goal of having the Taliban share power in exchange for an end to their violent insurgency) an acceptable proposition for the US government and various US military leaders now?
    I have no idea. My views on this war are well known here. We should not be negotiating. We should simply be gone, unless there are more terrorists to kill.

    This is becoming painfully circular. We get it, you think it was all a really bad idea. I think it was a necessary thing, but sadly watered down with touchy-feely nation-building efforts that fall on a deaf and blind populace, who care only about immediate $$ and their personal safety. If they cannot find it within themselves to get rid of the taliban and the extreme mullahs and madrassas, then why should we?

    Our "negotiations" with the taliban should consist of a broadcast - "If we find you have exported violence outside your borders again, we will come for you. We will kill you. If you want to beat Afghanis who dance or play music, if you want to keep girls like cattle, if you want to bugger little boys, it's between you and God."

    Leave a comment:


  • Agnostic Muslim
    replied
    Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
    Regardless of whether he was a willing accomplice, Mullah Omar knowingly chose his path and that of the Taliban government... to harbor Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda .
    Source: The Guardian
    While googling for more details related to that interview, I also came across a Der Spiegel interview with the Saudi intelligence chief at the time, Prince Turki, which would support the US position that the Taliban (or Mullah Omar at least) was not going to budge on OBL:
    Turki:... Incidentally, we had a rather friendly conversation in June 1998. I told Mullah Omar that it would be better to give us bin Laden, that is, if he had any interest in continuing his friendly relations with Saudi Arabia. He agreed, at least in principle. We agreed to set up a joint committee to arrange the details of bin Laden's extradition. ...

    ...
    SPIEGEL: The situation had taken a dramatic turn. In August, Al Qaeda terrorists blew up the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the US government launched bombing attacks on bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan. Did this change Mullah Omar's position?

    Turki: I had come to pressure him to go ahead with the extradition, and I encountered a completely transformed Omar. He was extremely nervous, perspired, and even screamed at me. He denied that he had promised us he would extradite bin Laden, and wanted nothing to do with a joint committee. He wanted to know what had possessed us to want to arrest such an illustrious holy warrior as Osama bin Laden! And why we didn't prefer to free the world of the infidels! He was furious. I could not help but think that we might have been taking drugs. When he continued to insult Saudi Arabia and the royal family, I ended the meeting. I recommended that my government freeze its relations with the Taliban, and that's exactly what happened ...
    In light of these comments I'll retract my argument that the US did not explore 'all possible options' before attacking Afghanistan since it appears clear that the top leadership of the Taliban (Mullah Omar) had no intention of ever extraditing OBL/AQ leaders to any country, not even Saudi Arabia.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    So your point is if the US was not willing to negotiate with the Taliban in 2001 then why are they doing it in 2013 ?

    Quick answer : context

    At what level these talks are going on is not clear, track C or is it D.

    In what official capacity is the US talking to the Taliban.

    Leave a comment:


  • Agnostic Muslim
    replied
    Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
    Regardless of whether he was a willing accomplice, Mullah Omar knowingly chose his path and that of the Taliban government... to harbor Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda .


    Source: The Guardian
    I was not aware of that interview, and it certainly contradicts the statement made by the Taliban Ambassador about extraditing OBL.

    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    Nor will we ever, since admission of such is a one-way ticket to Gitmo. No sane individual is going to step forward and admit to helping to plan the 9/11 attacks.

    AQ's "track record" prior to 9/11 was not secret.

    You have just invited the U.S. Embassy bombers into your home. "I'll bet they behave themselves from now on. We are in no way culpable for their actions before this, or after."

    Really, AM? Really?
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post

    Am not undrstanding your point with this discussion ? crying over spilt milk

    What is your objective in defending this flawed narrative.

    To what end ?
    So what exactly has changed between 2001 and 2013 in terms of the Taliban and Mullah Omar that makes negotiating with the Taliban (ostensibly with the goal of having the Taliban share power in exchange for an end to their violent insurgency) an acceptable proposition for the US government and various US military leaders now?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X