If you think we would hand anyone over to Afghanistan without evidence, you're a fucking retard.
North Korea goes full retard
- Thread starter Juvarisx
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,007
- 138,746
The taliban didn't exist then? that picture of reagan is with muhajadeen which became the northern alliance which fought the taliban, the taliban where mostly muslims from neighboring countries.
I know brown people all look alive but there's a difference,
Oh and America has one of the worst records in the world when it comes to harboring terrorists, so that's also a fucking retarded line of thought.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 81,591
- 163,186
We wouldnt do it. We barely hand over our people when there is shitloads of evidence, let alone on a demand that is enforced by a threat of violence.
You're wasting your time. He's already decided the stupid shit he believes.
edit:// And surprise surprise, it's his typical golden mean idiocy.
edit:// And surprise surprise, it's his typical golden mean idiocy.
Szlia
Member
- 6,634
- 1,376
At that point in time, had the US even recognized the legitimacy of the taliban as the ruling power in Afghanistan? I doubt it did. So it was not a state asking another state, it was a state demanding that a bunch of terrorist-friendly, world heritage site bombing, opium exporting guys did something.
Eomer
Trakanon Raider
- 5,472
- 272
Whoever was arguing earlier that there is no such "thing" as "The Taliban" is a straight up moron, by the way. I guess Mullah Omar wasn't a real person, and he wasn't head of it's supreme council either. I'm not really going to get in to the argument about whether or not it was a good idea to invade or attack Afghanistan, but at that time the Taliban was for all intents and purposes the governing body of the vast majority of the country, Mullah Omar was the defacto leader, and he had explicitly stated his goal was the destruction of America:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1657368.stm
Granted that specific link isafterthe US had attacked. However prior to September 11, the Taliban and Al Qaeda didn't just coexist in Afghanistan with one ignoring the other as some have seemingly claimed. The two had become very closely associated, with each supporting the other explicitly in their respective activities. Al Qaeda helped the Taliban take over the country by bringing in experienced fighters, and the Taliban was more than happy to let them set up shop knowing what their goals were. That shit went back to the mid 90's of course, with Bill Clinton lobbing cruise missiles at Al Qaeda camps and Omar getting right pissed about it.
So again, you can debate all the geopolitical/strategic aspects about whether attacking/occupying Afghanistan was a bright idea if you want. But several people have made some claims that are just straight up untrue. The Taliban was and still is an actual organization (and is in fact currently somewhat split between the Afghani and Pakistani versions), it was the ruling power of Afghanistan at the time even if it was only recognized by 3 nations, it did closely associate with Al Qaeda and for all intents of purposes the September 11 attacks were a declaration of war by Afghanistan (ignoring the previous history of the US bombing it in the 90's, of course).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Al_Qaeda
Granted that specific link isafterthe US had attacked. However prior to September 11, the Taliban and Al Qaeda didn't just coexist in Afghanistan with one ignoring the other as some have seemingly claimed. The two had become very closely associated, with each supporting the other explicitly in their respective activities. Al Qaeda helped the Taliban take over the country by bringing in experienced fighters, and the Taliban was more than happy to let them set up shop knowing what their goals were. That shit went back to the mid 90's of course, with Bill Clinton lobbing cruise missiles at Al Qaeda camps and Omar getting right pissed about it.
So again, you can debate all the geopolitical/strategic aspects about whether attacking/occupying Afghanistan was a bright idea if you want. But several people have made some claims that are just straight up untrue. The Taliban was and still is an actual organization (and is in fact currently somewhat split between the Afghani and Pakistani versions), it was the ruling power of Afghanistan at the time even if it was only recognized by 3 nations, it did closely associate with Al Qaeda and for all intents of purposes the September 11 attacks were a declaration of war by Afghanistan (ignoring the previous history of the US bombing it in the 90's, of course).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Al_Qaeda
None of the above is intended to ignore or downplay the US' previous support of the Taliban during the civil war when Unocal was looking to set up shop, nor support even before that for Bin Laden during the Soviet occupation.
No, it's a lot more complicated than that. The initial fission reaction is the imploding first stage, and then there's subsequent second and even third fusion or fission stages that are not necessarily imploded. I don't pretend to know how it actually works, but the Clancy book The Sum of All Fears has a fair amount of explanation in it that is pretty interesting and not too dense.BrutulTM_sl said:
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 81,591
- 163,186
We recognized them as the modern day equivalents of our Founding Fathers. Does that count for anything?
Eomer
Trakanon Raider
- 5,472
- 272
Perhaps. Don't let the fact that Omar didn't start the Taliban until ~1994 get in the way of Araysar's bullshit. It's origins go back further of course to the Soviet occupation, but "The Taliban" as it is mostly thought of didn't really exist until sometime in the early 90s.
But it's OK, they were against the Ruskies. Just like giving Saddam chemical weapons was OK because he was against the Iranians.We recognized them as the modern day equivalents of our Founding Fathers. Does that count for anything?
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 81,591
- 163,186
Same guys, same ideology, same goals the entire time, probably the same turbans too. But I guess it doesnt count if you don't rebrand yourself until 1994.
Like when Blackwater decided to call itself Xe and then Academi, their goals and people changed entirely.
Wikipedia seems to think they have been around since 1979, but we know theyre never right about anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
Yeah so they used Al Qaeda as muscle to enforce their shitty theocratic fiefdom. What does this have to do with them asking for evidence that Bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks? How did you go from that wiki text to the conclusion that "for all intents of purposes the September 11 attacks were a declaration of war by Afghanistan?" I don't understand how that follows at all.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
So they wore a turban so you consider them all the same? Nice. Also, read your own fucking link, it disproves what you said about the Taliban.
Your entire argument becomes completely absurd when you consider what would be the ramifications if we hadn't gone into Afghanistan. Then the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (who were clearly linked together at the hip) would have essentially shown that you could do an attack on the US and not suffer any real repercussions.
Also, praise jesus was it a good idea to put Mikhail on ignore earlier today. Its so nice to not see his thread vomit.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
There was a pretty big split between the Taliban led mujahadeen and the Ahmed Shah Massoud led Northern Alliance, even during the 80s. Osama bin Laden had him assassinated 3 days before the 9-11 attacks because he knew Ahmed Massoud was his biggest threat in Afghanistan proper, and felt that the Northern Alliance wouldn't work with the US if Massoud was out of the way, or would be far less effective without his experienced leadership.
Its not really accurate to say the Mujahadeen didn't become the Taliban, but its not exactly accurate to say that the Northern Alliance and the groups which would become the Taliban weren't involved with one another on an economic and even in a day to day capacity. Its like that saying "Me against my brother. My brother and I against our cousins. My brother, my cousins and I against the world."
Factional warfare in what amount to pre-State cultural environments aren't easily classified in black and white terms.
Its like Sudan, where the South Sudanese military split between Dinka and Nuer led groups during the early 1990s, while also being at war with the Khartoum centered northern government, who was also at war with the East of the nation at the same time. Its just too factionalized and too locale specific to make blanket statements about the situation in any capacity. Some of the former Northern Alliance generals became Taliban members, and some Taliban members became Northern Alliance members as relationships altered and the situation on the ground changed over the years between the end of the Soviet invasion and the beginning of the US invasion.
Ahmed Shah Massoud, had he been able to unite Afghanistan, is the exact type of Muslim moderate you would want leading a nation like Afghanistan, for the most part. Guy built lots of schools, believed generally in equality between the sexes, for Afghanistan, the guy was practically JFK.
Its not really accurate to say the Mujahadeen didn't become the Taliban, but its not exactly accurate to say that the Northern Alliance and the groups which would become the Taliban weren't involved with one another on an economic and even in a day to day capacity. Its like that saying "Me against my brother. My brother and I against our cousins. My brother, my cousins and I against the world."
Factional warfare in what amount to pre-State cultural environments aren't easily classified in black and white terms.
Its like Sudan, where the South Sudanese military split between Dinka and Nuer led groups during the early 1990s, while also being at war with the Khartoum centered northern government, who was also at war with the East of the nation at the same time. Its just too factionalized and too locale specific to make blanket statements about the situation in any capacity. Some of the former Northern Alliance generals became Taliban members, and some Taliban members became Northern Alliance members as relationships altered and the situation on the ground changed over the years between the end of the Soviet invasion and the beginning of the US invasion.
Ahmed Shah Massoud, had he been able to unite Afghanistan, is the exact type of Muslim moderate you would want leading a nation like Afghanistan, for the most part. Guy built lots of schools, believed generally in equality between the sexes, for Afghanistan, the guy was practically JFK.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 81,591
- 163,186
I never questioned the motivation to go there. Immediate post 9/11 politics demanded blood and it was going to be extracted from someone, someway. I thought it was stupid from the get go, after emigrating from a country that already spent 9 years there, a decade prior to 9/11, but hey what does a a 20 year old know about world politics when compared to a bunch of experts in Washington.
What I questioned was the claim that Afghanistan was partially responsible for 9/11. If some association between a government and some faction is enough to lay responsibility for 9/11 at their feet and declare that they need to be overthrown, then where do you draw the line? Is US government responsible for Blackwater atrocities because they employed them? Or is Blackwater responsible for the atrocities? Would someone like Iraq be perfectly justified in expecting that US would turn over those contractors without evidence to face trial in an Iraqi system?
You guys apply one set of standards to US, and then a completely different set of standards to Afghanistan (or anyone else really) to rationalize invading them, pulling everything out of your ass from extradition treaties, to debating the specific year that the taliban assumed the name "Taliban". Just admit already that you wanted vengeance and leave the semantics for your "clips vs. magazines" arguments.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
You are right in that it demanded immediate action, but not simply because of a blood frenzy.
The Taliban gave harbor to Al-Qaeda. They gave them recruits, they gave them a base, they trained alongside them. If we had decided not to go into Afghanistan simply because the Taliban != Al-Qaeda directly, the message would have been that you are immune to justice as long as you give even half a degree of separation from yourself to the people that did the attacks. That is pretty self evidently a bad idea.
Szlia
Member
- 6,634
- 1,376
It's a completely different set of standards because it's a completely different kind of entity.
And it's not like there are vague ties between the taliban and al qaeda like both being active in the same area of the world during the same time: they worked hand in hand, with al qaeda funding and equipping the taliban. The fact that the taliban, once in power, were willing to throw Ben Laden under the bus in exchange of some sort of international legitimacy is irrelevant.
And it's not like there are vague ties between the taliban and al qaeda like both being active in the same area of the world during the same time: they worked hand in hand, with al qaeda funding and equipping the taliban. The fact that the taliban, once in power, were willing to throw Ben Laden under the bus in exchange of some sort of international legitimacy is irrelevant.