The All things Political Topic - The Night never knew that its end was fleet.

[Amentep]

Old thread:

Last few posts:

  

13 hours ago, Malcador said:

You've played too much C&C, don't think there'll ever be a GDI.

 

12 hours ago, Azdeus said:

Too bad, then I'd be able to join the Brotherhood

 

11 hours ago, Gorth said:

Just a thought experiment on my part, but maybe the US, the UK, West Germany and other countries did their job a bit too well when supporting the Mujahedin financially, materially and politically in their fight against the Soviet Union. Lots of those old fighters (who later moved on to lead AQ and other groups) learnt that major, foreign powers can be defeated and driven off if you try hard enough, no matter how big they are. Not that the Soviet Union didn't screw up badly too, suddenly getting mixed up in an Afghan civil war between two factions.

 

8 hours ago, Hurlsnot said:

Yes, that is what I was saying. Her response was perfect to his clumsy statement.

 

5 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

On the state of the Afghanistan army and the U.S. trying to build them up: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/68d75dfkdampyr0/interesting_insight_into_the_abysmal_state_of_the-zy22bendf0i71.mp4

Thought this was a comedy skit at first, but no... Personally, I'm very happy we're finally getting out: sunk costs should not dictate future costs. Sucks for everyone involved (that we wasted so many lives and so much money and time and effort, for those of them that wanted and depended on us being there, and so on), it really does, but that's life - the best time to have gotten out was right away, the second best is right now. Let's not try to do any more nation-building for a long time, thank you very much - we don't exactly have a good track record of it anyways.

 

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Your post is not a thought experiment but is the historical truth around the sequence of events that led to the  creation of AQ and the Afghan War heavily influenced the strategy of the Taliban

After USSR left Afghanistan Bin Laden created  AQ because he believed that the best way to deal with any attempt to undermine or conquer  Sunni countries was to use a Sunni army and not rely on foreign countries for defense

He wanted Saudi Arabia to not bring the likes of the USA into ME conflicts and blamed the US for  the fact Saudi Arabia and most of the ME countries wanted Western countries to help in the Second Gulf  War... hence the US became the " great evil " and was targeted by AQ which lead to 9/11

But yes Bin Laden and the Taliban views were shaped by the events and success of Soviet Afghan War

But one point I disagree with, the USSR was directly responsible for the Soviet Afghan War. They invaded Afghanistan to support the  puppet Communist government  in 1979 so I am not sure why you would think they are not ultimately responsible for the creation of AQ as you follow the sequence of historical events because if the Soviets hadnt invaded Afghanistan  you would not  have had Bin Laden and other foreign fighters flocking to Afghanistan to support the mujahideen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War

https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/al-qaeda

 

 

[Guard Dog]

Meet the new Taliban. Same as the old Taliban.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Meet the new Taliban. Same as the old Taliban.

You sound surprised ? Dont be, this is the new Taliban and they said they respect human rights.....I heard they cant wait to see their first LGBT marriage 

[HoonDing]

Incel heaven.

[Guard Dog]

8 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

You sound surprised ? Dont be, this is the new Taliban and they said they respect human rights.....I heard they cant wait to see their first LGBT marriage 

Not surprised at all. Savages will be savage.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Guard Dog

[ComradeYellow]

On 8/18/2021 at 1:30 PM, Guard Dog said:

Meet the new Taliban. Same as the old Taliban.

O'Rly?

How Russia-China are stage-managing the Taliban | The Vineyard of the Saker

These are the key takeaways.

– No problem for women to get education all the way to college, and to continue to work. They just need to wear the hijab (like in Qatar or Iran). No need to wear a burqa. The Taliban insists, “all women’s rights will be guaranteed within the limits of Islamic law.”

– The Islamic Emirate “does not threaten anyone” and will not treat anyone as enemies. Crucially, revenge – an essential plank of the Pashtunwali code – will be abandoned, and that’s unprecedented. There will be a general amnesty– including people who worked for the former NATO-aligned system. Translators, for instance, won’t be harassed, and don’t need to leave the country.

– Security of foreign embassies and international organizations “is a priority.” Taliban special security forces will protect both those leaving Afghanistan and those who remain. – A strong inclusive Islamic government will be formed. “Inclusive” is code for the participation of women and Shi’ites.

– Foreign media will continue to work undisturbed. The Taliban government will allow public criticism and debate. But “freedom of speech in Afghanistan must be in line with Islamic values.”

– The Islamic Emirate of Taliban wants recognition from the “international community” – code for NATO. The overwhelming majority of Eurasia and the Global South will recognize it anyway. It’s essential to note, for example, the closer integration of the expanding SCO – Iran is about to become a full member, Afghanistan is an observer – with ASEAN: the absolute majority of Asia will not shun the Taliban.

________

Whether they live up to it is anyones guess but the rhetoric here at least is a vast improvement from the old days.

Edited August 20, 2021 by ComradeYellow

[Skarpen]

13 minutes ago, ComradeYellow said:

No problem for women to get education all the way to college, and to continue to work. They just need to wear the hijab (like in Qatar or Iran). No need to wear a burqa. The Taliban insists, “all women’s rights will be guaranteed within the limits of Islamic law.”

And which Islamic law are we talking here? You do know how Islam works right? There are different groups that interpret Islamic laws very differently. Not that the core laws in Quran are very pro women but some groups tweak even those. So basically it's like Christian country would say "all rights of witches will be guaranteed according to biblical laws" it sounds good unless you know what biblical laws say about witches. 

[BruceVC]

18 minutes ago, ComradeYellow said:

O'Rly?

How Russia-China are stage-managing the Taliban | The Vineyard of the Saker

These are the key takeaways.

– No problem for women to get education all the way to college, and to continue to work. They just need to wear the hijab (like in Qatar or Iran). No need to wear a burqa. The Taliban insists, “all women’s rights will be guaranteed within the limits of Islamic law.”

– The Islamic Emirate “does not threaten anyone” and will not treat anyone as enemies. Crucially, revenge – an essential plank of the Pashtunwali code – will be abandoned, and that’s unprecedented. There will be a general amnesty– including people who worked for the former NATO-aligned system. Translators, for instance, won’t be harassed, and don’t need to leave the country.

– Security of foreign embassies and international organizations “is a priority.” Taliban special security forces will protect both those leaving Afghanistan and those who remain. – A strong inclusive Islamic government will be formed. “Inclusive” is code for the participation of women and Shi’ites.

– Foreign media will continue to work undisturbed. The Taliban government will allow public criticism and debate. But “freedom of speech in Afghanistan must be in line with Islamic values.”

– The Islamic Emirate of Taliban wants recognition from the “international community” – code for NATO. The overwhelming majority of Eurasia and the Global South will recognize it anyway. It’s essential to note, for example, the closer integration of the expanding SCO – Iran is about to become a full member, Afghanistan is an observer – with ASEAN: the absolute majority of Asia will not shun the Taliban.

________

Whether they live up to it is anyones guess but the rhetoric here at least is a vast improvement from the old days.

I was going to respond how ridiculous anyone is to believe anything that the " new " Taliban say but you did mention the word rhetoric so their is no need 

Here is the future for Afghan women, personally words and grandstanding arent as important or relevant as actions....that is what really matters

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/08/world/asia/bombing-school-afghanistan.html

 

[ComradeYellow]

30 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

And which Islamic law are we talking here? You do know how Islam works right? There are different groups that interpret Islamic laws very differently. Not that the core laws in Quran are very pro women but some groups tweak even those. So basically it's like Christian country would say "all rights of witches will be guaranteed according to biblical laws" it sounds good unless you know what biblical laws say about witches. 

 

29 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I was going to respond how ridiculous anyone is to believe anything that the " new " Taliban say but you did mention the word rhetoric so their is no need 

Here is the future for Afghan women, personally words and grandstanding arent as important or relevant as actions....that is what really matters

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/08/world/asia/bombing-school-afghanistan.html

 

Also from the article I posted: 

 

Both Moscow and Beijing have no illusions that the West is already deploying Hybrid War tactics to discredit and destabilize a government that isn’t even formed and hasn’t even started working. No wonder Chinese media is describing Washington as a “strategic rogue.”

What matters is that Russia-China are way ahead of the curve, cultivating parallel inside tracks of diplomatic dialogue with the Taliban. It’s always crucial to remember that Russia harbors 20 million Muslims, and China at least 35 million. These will be called to support the immense project of Afghan reconstruction – and full Eurasia reintegration.

[Skarpen]

Treating of women in Islamic countries is something that goes back a long time. Blaming the current narration on Moscow and Beijing is a little dishonest. There already are repression towards women in workplaces. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiatoday.in/amp/world/story/they-said-you-are-a-woman-go-home-afghan-journalist-talks-about-life-after-taliban-takeover-1842868-2021-08-19

[BruceVC]

54 minutes ago, ComradeYellow said:

 

Also from the article I posted: 

 

 

 

I appreciate your posts and always have because I fundamentally support the principle of debate which requires people to not share your opinion. So an echo chamber on  this forum of everyone agreeing with me ideologically would be boring, I would not learn anything new and most importantly it would destroy the principle of debate and  unfortunately I would be forced to leave this forum to find another " Off Topic " section on another gaming website to have these type of  debates 

So I am not being patronizing  when I say I dont think I have ever agreed overall with  anything you have ever said  yet I appreciate your posts. But I mean our ideological and economic discussions, I  have agreed with you on other topics and in the gaming section 

So just to comment on this particular post when the article suggests

Both Moscow and Beijing have no illusions that the West is already deploying Hybrid War tactics to discredit and destabilize a government that isn’t even formed and hasn’t even started working.

 

The West doesnt need to undermine or malign the Talibans ability to govern because they have no experience, understanding or interest in even remotely implementing some kind of legitimate Constitutional Democracy or similar government  that will address the real rights and aspirations  of Afghan citizens. Russia and China dont understand or care about nation building so its irrelevant what they say. Only the West can nation build and even then its not guaranteed but their are  successes like Japan, SK and Germany after WW2 

  So of course Afghanistan is going to fail under the Taliban but not because of naysayers from the West but because of the Taliban and their medieval and anachronistic views and policies 

This is basically 90-95 % guaranteed 

[Gorth]

Up until The Taliban throws all their support behind the Uighurs... because you know, creating external demons always work like a charm if things gets too stale and the population too restless at home.

[BruceVC]

8 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Up until The Taliban throws all their support behind the Uighurs... because you know, creating external demons always work like a charm if things gets too stale and the population too restless at home.

You right about the Uighurs, I am not laughing because I think its a frivolous topic. Its just the absurd and confusing reality of Chinese foreign policy is exactly what you suggesting. The CCP of course will support the Taliban ....until they do anything that is opposed to their own internal policies and then this nauseatingly, false " the West doesnt support the new Taliban  unlike us "  will at least end 

[BruceVC]

Commentators on CNN are saying how some in the GOP want to turn the Afghanistan withdrawal into the " new Benghazi " ....I hope we dont see that especially since it was Trump who initiated the ill-conceived withdrawal first and Biden just followed through. So blame, if you want to blame someone, lies with both parties 

[Guard Dog]

The best line of this entire debacle came from a man named Tom Tugendhat, a British MP:

"to see their commander in chief president Joe Biden call into question the courage of men I fought with, to claim they ran. It's shameful. Those who have never fought for the colors they fly should be careful about criticizing those who have."

[Malcador]

15 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

The best line of this entire debacle came from a man named Tom Tugendhat, a British MP:

"to see their commander in chief president Joe Biden call into question the courage of men I fought with, to claim they ran. It's shameful. Those who have never fought for the colors they fly should be careful about criticizing those who have."

Soldiers > Everyone else, I guess.

Sort of amusing to hear him talk about reducing dependence on America by re-engaging with Europeans, heh.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Malcador

[Guard Dog]

25 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Soldiers > Everyone else, I guess.

Sort of amusing to hear him talk about reducing dependence on America by re-engaging with Europeans, heh.

I’ve always said I thought it was important for the US president to have military experience. If you’re going to be the commander in chief of the US military you should know a little bit about it. It’s not a requirement by any means. Nor should it be. Just something to consider when casting your vote. 

[Raithe]

 

[BruceVC]

58 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

The best line of this entire debacle came from a man named Tom Tugendhat, a British MP:

"to see their commander in chief president Joe Biden call into question the courage of men I fought with, to claim they ran. It's shameful. Those who have never fought for the colors they fly should be careful about criticizing those who have."

But GD I am honestly confused by what you suggesting, I think I know but Im not sure ?

The US didnt run away, it withdrew and this was an Obama goal in 2014....so Im not sure why anyone who is being objective about the actual facts and timelines would suggest the US " ran away " ?

Is this what you mean?

[Malcador]

24 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I’ve always said I thought it was important for the US president to have military experience. If you’re going to be the commander in chief of the US military you should know a little bit about it. It’s not a requirement by any means. Nor should it be. Just something to consider when casting your vote. 

Possibly, the list of Presidents who have had that doesn't indicate it's much of a quality  

But his statement was "Those who have never fought for the colors they fly should be careful about criticizing those who have." and that's a bit nonsense, even if it's rather common.   Also strange as that MP has warned about trying to preserve the "special relationship" as apparently the US is becoming isolationist and then says what he said there. 

Edited August 20, 2021 by Malcador

[BruceVC]

22 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I’ve always said I thought it was important for the US president to have military experience. If you’re going to be the commander in chief of the US military you should know a little bit about it. It’s not a requirement by any means. Nor should it be. Just something to consider when casting your vote. 

Im a huge believer  in military experience in any legitimate conflict like  the War on Terror as a very important factor in what makes an ideal president for me. We must respect and support our armed services because of the important role they play in ensuring peace and stability and an ex-military president should understand this and support the military reasonably but unequivocally 

[Guard Dog]

I believe he was referring to the Afghan military. Biden said they wouldn’t fight. They did fight and have been fighting and losing for a while now. But then it turns out half of their leader ship was already Taliban and the other half packed up a bunch of US dollars and fled. 
 

that whole thing was a mess. Has been for 20 straight years. The only way to fix it would be to travel back in time and get out in 2002 after the Taliban were deposed.

[Hurlshort]

50 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Possibly, the list of Presidents who have had that doesn't indicate it's much of a quality  

I would say Eisenhower after WWII was hugely important, as it was his military experience that allowed him to reign them in. Although it is likely that someone like Patton would have gone the opposite direction. 

[Raithe]

Of course, does this mean that Trump will now stop going on about how he got the troops out of Afghanistan, and that nothing Biden could do would stop it, and thus Trump stopped the war?

[Guard Dog]

6 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

I would say Eisenhower after WWII was hugely important, as it was his military experience that allowed him to reign them in. Although it is likely that someone like Patton would have gone the opposite direction. 

Kennedy in ‘63 both in SE Asia and the Cuban Missile Crisis.