| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| No, this is not exactly true. The Taliban=mujaheddin equation has been long debunked. And that was more than a generation ago. |
Not as "debunked" as you may think:
From Mujahideen heroes to Taliban terrorists
Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:46:59 GMT
The Areas on both sides of the modern Afghan border, beginning in Bajaur and traveling south west all the way to Baluchistan have been home to a group of fiercely independent, closely interlinked, formidable warriors for thousands of years.
The region -much reduced by the 19th century- was an independent tribal territory until 1893 and remained outside the British Empire, with frequent skirmishes a trademark in relations between the Waziri tribesmen and British rule.
Surviving historic documents and written accounts from Iran's Achaemenid Empire of 2500 years ago indicate that even then there were troubles on Eranshahr's (Persian Empire) borders with tribes that closely fit the modern-day description of the region's peoples. Around one thousand years later during Iran's Sassanid Dynasty rule, Eranshar's top warrior princes, fell prey to a major trap set by the same tribes, greatly bereaving the Royal Household.
In more recent times Waziri tribes fought alongside the Pashtun Mujahideen against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan in the 1980s. After the Taliban rule was formed in Afghanistan, Waziri fighting men went back to their old way of life in the north and south Wazirestan districts situated in modern-day Pakistan.
The Afghan Mujahideen branch loyal to the Northern Alliance of late Ahmad Shah Massoud (the Lion of Panjshir) later fell out with the southern Pashtun tribes and valiantly fought their Taliban rule. Ahmad Shah Massoud was himself assassinated by two Taliban operatives posing as the press prior to the 9/11 events.
But let us not miss the point here that the same fighting men hailed as Mujahideen heroes in the 1980s went to terrorist zeros a mere eleven years later and were bombed mercilessly accused of involvement in the terrorist atrocities in New York and Washington.
However where does the Taliban end and ethnic Waziri tribes begin in the current US hi-tech slaughter in the Wazirestan regions?
We are told day after day about the US military pilot less drone strikes that often result in the deaths of civilians in Wazirestan. The daily toll is immediately justified by Western media reports that the Taliban terrorists are being hunted down and weeded out by the US strikes.
more at link |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| No, this is not exactly true. The Taliban=mujaheddin equation has been long debunked. And that was more than a generation ago. |
Not as "debunked" as you may think:
From Mujahideen heroes to Taliban terrorists
Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:46:59 GMT
The Areas on both sides of the modern Afghan border, beginning in Bajaur and traveling south west all the way to Baluchistan have been home to a group of fiercely independent, closely interlinked, formidable warriors for thousands of years.
The region -much reduced by the 19th century- was an independent tribal territory until 1893 and remained outside the British Empire, with frequent skirmishes a trademark in relations between the Waziri tribesmen and British rule.
Surviving historic documents and written accounts from Iran's Achaemenid Empire of 2500 years ago indicate that even then there were troubles on Eranshahr's (Persian Empire) borders with tribes that closely fit the modern-day description of the region's peoples. Around one thousand years later during Iran's Sassanid Dynasty rule, Eranshar's top warrior princes, fell prey to a major trap set by the same tribes, greatly bereaving the Royal Household.
In more recent times Waziri tribes fought alongside the Pashtun Mujahideen against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan in the 1980s. After the Taliban rule was formed in Afghanistan, Waziri fighting men went back to their old way of life in the north and south Wazirestan districts situated in modern-day Pakistan.
The Afghan Mujahideen branch loyal to the Northern Alliance of late Ahmad Shah Massoud (the Lion of Panjshir) later fell out with the southern Pashtun tribes and valiantly fought their Taliban rule. Ahmad Shah Massoud was himself assassinated by two Taliban operatives posing as the press prior to the 9/11 events.
But let us not miss the point here that the same fighting men hailed as Mujahideen heroes in the 1980s went to terrorist zeros a mere eleven years later and were bombed mercilessly accused of involvement in the terrorist atrocities in New York and Washington.
However where does the Taliban end and ethnic Waziri tribes begin in the current US hi-tech slaughter in the Wazirestan regions?
We are told day after day about the US military pilot less drone strikes that often result in the deaths of civilians in Wazirestan. The daily toll is immediately justified by Western media reports that the Taliban terrorists are being hunted down and weeded out by the US strikes.
more at link |
The Taliban were not the only group that made up the mujahideen. Yes I know that leftist groups love to push this theme as they can then accuse the U.S of hypocrisy. The point is that the U.S supported the mujahideen NOT the Taliban. The fact that some Taliban were among the mujahideen does not lessen this.
It also calls into question this comment from your link. "But let us not miss the point here that the same fighting men hailed as Mujahideen heroes in the 1980s went to terrorist zeros a mere eleven years later and were bombed mercilessly accused of involvement in the terrorist atrocities in New York and Washington."
First of all "the SAME fighting men"? That was 30 years ago...most of them would be in their 50's and 60's by now.
Secondly the locals who made up the Northern Alliance were also fighting as Mujahideen...when were THEY accused of terrorist atrocities?
Third, if the Taliban were actually guilty of terrorist crimes, then their past involvement in the war against Russia does not absolve them of this. In fact it's a complete non sequiter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've noticed that even informed people and opinion leaders are unable to keep straight who we are fighting and why. Because it isn't perfectly clear. The situation is fluid. We buy off group X which pisses off warlord Y who we then try to kill off by supporting group Z, which creates a power vacuum and so on.
Maybe we should just MYOB. The CIA says there are less than 100 AQ members left. The war is won. Come home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
I've noticed that even informed people and opinion leaders are unable to keep straight who we are fighting and why. Because it isn't perfectly clear. The situation is fluid. We buy off group X which pisses off warlord Y who we then try to kill off by supporting group Z, which creates a power vacuum and so on.
Maybe we should just MYOB. The CIA says there are less than 100 AQ members left. The war is won. Come home. |
AQ is quite skilled at recruiting. We leave now and go home and in a decade there could be well over 1000 AQ recruits. Lots of locals have been killed, and there's plenty of angry young men with no jobs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| The CIA says there are less than 100 AQ members left. |
As long as they have box cutters, these 100 will be a clear and present danger to the world.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| AQ is quite skilled at recruiting. |
Yeah, they are. Here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/front_page/newsid_10000000/newsid_10003000/10003036.stm
| Quote: |
The FBI is worried a group linked to al-Qaeda is training up a new generation of terrorists.
They're thought to be targeting young Somali immigrants, radicalising them to carry out attacks on their home country and possibly the US in the future. |
Terrorism today is 1) an immigration issue and 2) a policing issue. Occupying Afghanistan doesn't help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=2240863
| Quote: |
| KANDAHARAIRFIELD, Afghanistan -- In a move that may increase international political pressure on Ottawa to extend its combat mission in Kandahar beyond July, 2011, NATO is likely to announce within days that Canada's Task Force Afghanistan will grow significantly in size as thousands more U.S. combat troops are placed under Canadian command. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
I've noticed that even informed people and opinion leaders are unable to keep straight who we are fighting and why. Because it isn't perfectly clear. The situation is fluid. We buy off group X which pisses off warlord Y who we then try to kill off by supporting group Z, which creates a power vacuum and so on.
Maybe we should just MYOB. The CIA says there are less than 100 AQ members left. The war is won. Come home. |
I am more inclined to support withdrawal from Afghanistan rather than Iraq. I never wanted troops to go to either location. Afghanistan is too difficult to navigate. Too many of the people view NATO as an occupying force. Karzai so little power when compared to the Iraqi Government. I am not sure how much good-will NATO has. I think Afghanistan needs to quickly have its own military force and fight this one out itself. I am not sure what the solution is. I was unhappy to hear the Canadian Government gave people over to people who then tortured the poor fellows, and some of the people were innocent. This led people from Kandahar to fear and hate Canadian troops. Canadian troops are kind of lost down there. I am not sure the American troops know what's going on in that country, either.
Things might have been different had the US and Britain decided not to fight a two front war. The momentum that was there in the past disappeared in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's harder to get that back in Afghanistan. Of course, some of the neo-cons thought they were sons of Zeus and couldn't make errors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Adventurer"]
| mises wrote: |
| I. I was unhappy to hear the Canadian Government gave people over to people who then tortured the poor fellows, and some of the people were innocent. This led people from Kandahar to fear and hate Canadian troops. . |
I thought you said in that thread that those were allegations...unproven as of yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Terrorism today is 1) an immigration issue and 2) a policing issue. Occupying Afghanistan doesn't help. |
I agree with this. Soldiers do not effectively combat terrorists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Terrorism today is 1) an immigration issue and 2) a policing issue. Occupying Afghanistan doesn't help. |
I agree with this. Soldiers do not effectively combat terrorists. |
Agreed as well. The US will never be able to occupy every country that may harbor terrorists. It is far more sensible for western nations to focus on homeland security. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Canada would be well within its rights to tell Washington to go and piss up a rope.
It won't happen, of course, but I sure wouldn't think it came totally out of left field (perhaps that's a bad choice of words?). American FP has proven itself to be short-sighted and crap at sticking to long-term goals. I wouldn't be throwing in too many chips in on a U.S. wink and a nod at this point.
Aspects of the U.S. gov't style that are sometimes considered systemic strengths (or were at one time, anyway) can at other times prove themselves to be seriously f'ed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Yes I know that leftist groups love to push this theme as they can then accuse the U.S of hypocrisy. |
Come on, guys, make up your minds. Am I a leftist or a rightist? You're giving me an identity disorder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="TheUrbanMyth"]
| Adventurer wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| I. I was unhappy to hear the Canadian Government gave people over to people who then tortured the poor fellows, and some of the people were innocent. This led people from Kandahar to fear and hate Canadian troops. . |
I thought you said in that thread that those were allegations...unproven as of yet. |
I don't remember that. I just remember reading that a Canadian official said that Canada did deliver Afghans who may have been innocent to other Afghans who tortured them, and this angered people in Kandahar immensely. Such actions would lead people of Kandahar in some cases, even if they dislike the Taliban, to hate the Canadian troops. That defeats the purpose of trying to win the minds of the people. The Allies messed up in Afghanistan, because they didn't deliver on the development promised, and the Afghans have seen like economic or developmental change their country. I don't see how Afghans would view NATO positively since the West has not delivered on its promises to the people, and if plenty of civilians have been harmed, it will, surely, anger the people.
I would say stay in Afghanistan if there is seriousness in developing the country and also building a strong Afghan force. Otherwise, leave the people to their own devices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sen. Levin proposes higher taxes to pay for the damage we're doing in Afghanistan:
| Quote: |
| Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said higher-income Americans should be taxed to pay for additional troops sent to Afghanistan and that NATO should provide half of the new soldiers. |
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aI4IdHYuAl94
No Senator, taxes need not be raised for US operations in Afganistan, just GTFO! Really, though, if the pols need the extra revenue, they could consider liberalizing pot and prostitution or something. They can save money and raise revenue at the same time, what an ingenious idea! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
