• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

17 Afghans beheaded in insurgent attack on party

Diogenes said:
A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini is a novel that tracks three generations of Afghan women: one came of age under the king, another came of age under the Soviets, and the third came of age under the Taliban.

It is probably the most depressing story I've ever read, and it's difficult to contemplate the story without wanting to do something about it. Sharia law would shame a troop of baboons, and it is hard to see how those animals can ever be civilized without totally crushing the cesspool they call a culture. I recommend the book to anyone with the misguided notion that these creatures can be treated as a civilized people.
Click to expand...

That is moving to the top of my must read list.
 
apdst said:
I'm talking about the book, dude! :rofl
Click to expand...

Do you have anything else any other source? Because i honestly dont have time to read a whole book.
Because if that is the facts then there should be multiple sources.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Do you have anything else any other source? Because i honestly dont have time to read a whole book.
Because if that is the facts then there should be multiple sources.
Click to expand...

Just accept that you're mistaken. Your own sources prove that. If you don't want to educate yourself, that's not my problem.
 
apdst said:
Just accept that you're mistaken. Your own sources prove that. If you don't want to educate yourself, that's not my problem.
Click to expand...

How am I mistaken. We gave aid to the Mujhadeen which then sects within them became the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Your claiming we only gave aid to the good mujhadeen who didnt become the Taliban and Al Qaeda and all you have told me to do is read a book.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
How am I mistaken.
Click to expand...

You're mistaken, in that we didn't just throw a buncha cash to everyone that claimed to be the Mujahadeen.

We gave aid to the Mujhadeen which then sects within them became the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

No! We didn't! Get with the program. It's already been explained and supported with credible documenation.

Your claiming we only gave aid to the good mujhadeen who didnt become the Taliban and Al Qaeda
Click to expand...

I enver claimed any such thing. What happened, was that the CIA picked an elite core of mujas that had shown past success against the Soviets and those are the units they chose to fund and train. Those units were led by Massoud and eventually became The Northern Alliance.

and all you have told me to do is read a book.
Click to expand...

OMG!!! The horror!!!! God forbid you read a book and learn something!

Stop with the political spin. The United States didn't create the Taliban, nor al Qaeda. It was twisted ********ers like Usama Bin Laden that did that.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
How am I mistaken. We gave aid to the Mujhadeen which then sects within them became the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Your claiming we only gave aid to the good mujhadeen who didnt become the Taliban and Al Qaeda and all you have told me to do is read a book.
Click to expand...

Your post kind of defeats your arguments. So if people donate to the DNC and then a member of the DNC and former supporter of...say...a congresswoman in Arizona...then becomes a rabid prick that guns down a judge, a few others, and pops the congresswoman for good measure do we blame people that contribute to the DNC? The DNC?
Our government was supporting people fighting against the soviet takeover in Afghanistan. Some of those people went a little rabid...upset over non-Muslims fighting in their country.
 
VanceMack said:
Your post kind of defeats your arguments. So if people donate to the DNC and then a member of the DNC and former supporter of...say...a congresswoman in Arizona...then becomes a rabid prick that guns down a judge, a few others, and pops the congresswoman for good measure do we blame people that contribute to the DNC? The DNC?
Our government was supporting people fighting against the soviet takeover in Afghanistan. Some of those people went a little rabid...upset over non-Muslims fighting in their country.
Click to expand...

The Libbos will always blame America, because they can't blame the real culprits...the goddamn Communists! The entire reason for the Sovier intervention in Afghanistan, was the prop up the socialist revolutionary government, that came to power in the Soviet supported Saur Revolution.

I would post a source, but--god forbid--it might require someone to read a book, or something crazy like that.
 
apdst said:
The Libbos will always blame America, because they can't blame the real culprits...the goddamn Communists! The entire reason for the Sovier intervention in Afghanistan, was the prop up the socialist revolutionary government, that came to power in the Soviet supported Saur Revolution.

I would post a source, but--god forbid--it might require someone to read a book, or something crazy like that.
Click to expand...

Actually the root of that conflict goes way back to the 1800s during the "Great Game" conflict between the Brits and Tsarist Russia.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Actually the root of that conflict goes way back to the 1800s during the "Great Game" conflict between the Brits and Tsarist Russia.
Click to expand...

Bla...bla...bla...whatever! There's no escaping the fact that the true breeders of the Taliban were the Soviets and the struggle in Afghanistan, during the 80's was gainst Communist oppression of the world.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
How am I mistaken. We gave aid to the Mujhadeen which then sects within them became the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Your claiming we only gave aid to the good mujhadeen who didnt become the Taliban and Al Qaeda and all you have told me to do is read a book.
Click to expand...

That is correct more or less, but it isn't a small bit of quibbling it is a massive distinction. The US did not fund or support the Taliban or al-Qaeda, and to be specific it is unlikely that any US funding ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda since like most small Arab groups they did not receive heavy patronage from Pakistan's ISI or from Rabbani's Afghan group, and instead supported themselves with Arab donations and familial largesse. As for the Taliban it is important to note that it was a new group, it drew from rank and file fighters from many disparate organizations but began as a small group, and came into contact and conflict with many of the existing groups in Afghanistan.
 
apdst said:
Bla...bla...bla...whatever! There's no escaping the fact that the true breeders of the Taliban were the Soviets and the struggle in Afghanistan, during the 80's was gainst Communist oppression of the world.
Click to expand...

"The Taliban was a construct of the CIA and was armed by the CIA"….Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher

"It seemed like a great idea, back in the ’80s to– embolden– and train and equip– Taliban, mujahidin, jihadists against the Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan. And with our help, and with the Pakistani support– this group– including, at that time, Bin Laden, defeated the Soviet Union." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Oct. 7th, 2009
 
Manc Skipper said:
"The Taliban was a construct of the CIA and was armed by the CIA"….Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher

"It seemed like a great idea, back in the ’80s to– embolden– and train and equip– Taliban, mujahidin, jihadists against the Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan. And with our help, and with the Pakistani support– this group– including, at that time, Bin Laden, defeated the Soviet Union." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Oct. 7th, 2009
Click to expand...

Just because those two individuals misspoke or said what they said, whatever the case may be does not make it true. The evidence against it being true is massive. Now if we want to talk about US policy towards Afghanistan during the 1990's from end of GHWB's term through Clinton's term that is a different story. We missed a huge opportunity in Afghanistan under Clinton and became a little too close to the Taliban for comfort. That is much less a result of an active approach by Clinton, and more to do with pretty much ceding Afghan policy to the State Department and other aging bureaucrats who didn't understand the situation and ****ed things up, that being said Clinton was appraised of these problems more than once and did little to nothing to intervene.
 
Blah,blah, blah-

Books can have highly biased authors, I have read a few, some are written by folks trying to justify their actions and most often mistakes.

In a classic case of the Gawds laughing at our folly, the Soviets instituted many reforms, such as women as equals with the right to vote, ending forced marriages, crack down on warlords, road and medical improvements all of which inspired a tremendous backlash. (and we are trying to do the exact same thing)

If you invest a few dollars more and buy a complete history of Afghanistan you would find a violent history were revenge killings, coups, and assassinations are far more common than peaceful succession. Afghanistan wasn't breeding boy scouts before the soviets, ain't one now.

Trying to blame the Soviets for the Taliban flies in the face of a long and violent history for the tribes of the Hindu Kush and high desert plateau.

They are one in a continuing line... do note I said continuing....
 
notquiteright said:
Blah,blah, blah-

Books can have highly biased authors, I have read a few, some are written by folks trying to justify their actions and most often mistakes.

In a classic case of the Gawds laughing at our folly, the Soviets instituted many reforms, such as women as equals with the right to vote, ending forced marriages, crack down on warlords, road and medical improvements all of which inspired a tremendous backlash. (and we are trying to do the exact same thing)

If you invest a few dollars more and buy a complete history of Afghanistan you would find a violent history were revenge killings, coups, and assassinations are far more common than peaceful succession. Afghanistan wasn't breeding boy scouts before the soviets, ain't one now.

Trying to blame the Soviets for the Taliban flies in the face of a long and violent history for the tribes of the Hindu Kush and high desert plateau.

They are one in a continuing line... do note I said continuing....
Click to expand...

Afghanistan has a complex history, and was not in fact a failed or disparate state before the modern era. However while the Soviets brought social reforms, let's not forget what else they brought.
 
There was no such thing as the Taliban until after the Soviets left and civil war broke out in Afghanistan between rival war lords. Basically they are a branch or an offshoot of Alquiada and didn't really run Afghanistan until 1994. Clinton supported the Taliban for a while hoping they would bring a stable government to the country. They may indeed have started out as freedom fighters but they have morphed into what they are now. It may be a case of "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and I pity the people of Afghanistan if we pull out and let them take the country over again but we can't stay there forever. The taliban have a saying, "Americans have watches but we have time".
 
sawyerloggingon said:
There was no such thing as the Taliban until after the Soviets left and civil war broke out in Afghanistan between rival war lords. Basically they are a branch or an offshoot of Alquiada and didn't really run Afghanistan until 1994. Clinton supported the Taliban for a while hoping they would bring a stable government to the country. They may indeed have started out as freedom fighters but they have morphed into what they are now. It may be a case of "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and I pity the people of Afghanistan if we pull out and let them take the country over again but we can't stay there forever. The taliban have a saying, "Americans have watches but we have time".
Click to expand...

Eh, there are some details and characterization wrong with your narrative. For example the Taliban is not an off-shot of al-Qaeda, among other things.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
OK if you want to be more precise they grew together like 2 trees with one trunk, better?
Click to expand...

Still not really true. One is a much more sophisticated, internationalist, and Arab group that was forged in the Afghan War but was a very separate and distinct organization with little overlap with the Taliban. The Taliban was formed in the 1990's by religious students and ex-militia fighters from various groups to try and bring Islamist law and order 'back' to Afghan society and opposed other militant groups as a result, and was also almost entirely Afghan in its initial objectives and recruitment base. Their relationship with al-Qaeda became a positive one, but they were fundamentally different groups.
 
Afghanistan wasn't a nation before the modern era, 1500's.

it wasn't until the 19th century closed that a true Afghanistan emerged from warring shahs, generals, and foreign armies. Even then it wasn't a united nation as we would think but an affiliation, how tight or loose more dependent on the central ruler than any sense of national unity.

Now I didn't mention the Soviets to praise them, but to point out they stirred such ire by doing what we are attempting in the way of social reform. Not sure why we think we can do any better.
 
Sherman123 said:
Still not really true. One is a much more sophisticated, internationalist, and Arab group that was forged in the Afghan War but was a very separate and distinct organization with little overlap with the Taliban. The Taliban was formed in the 1990's by religious students and ex-militia fighters from various groups to try and bring Islamist law and order 'back' to Afghan society and opposed other militant groups as a result, and was also almost entirely Afghan in its initial objectives and recruitment base. Their relationship with al-Qaeda became a positive one, but they were fundamentally different groups.
Click to expand...

In 1994, bin Laden moved to Afghanistan and he used his wealth to finance the Taliban in the Afghan civil war. He bacame soul mates if you will with Mullah Ohmar and their ideologies merged, they matured into their present forms together and both are radical Wahabbe cult and believe in sharia law. They are like the army and the navy in this country,separate organizations but both represent the same country.
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
In 1994, bin Laden moved to Afghanistan and he used his wealth to finance the Taliban in the Afghan civil war. He bacame soul mates if you will with Mullah Ohmar and their ideologies merged, they matured into their present forms together and both are radical Wahabbe cult and believe in sharia law. They are like the army and the navy in this country,separate organizations but both represent the same country.
Click to expand...

That isn't really true, I have to go for a run but I'll hash it out more later. Essentially the Taliban emerged completely separate from al-Qaeda, while al-Qaeda planted itself in newly found friendly territory in Afghanistan and used its money and reservoir of committed militants to ingratiate themselves with the Taliban and support their campaign against Massoud and other renegade Afghan forces. But there was much friction at times, and it would be a real mistake to try and combine the two organizations. You also over-estimate the relationship between Omar and Bin Laden.
 
notquiteright said:
Afghanistan wasn't a nation before the modern era, 1500's.

it wasn't until the 19th century closed that a true Afghanistan emerged from warring shahs, generals, and foreign armies. Even then it wasn't a united nation as we would think but an affiliation, how tight or loose more dependent on the central ruler than any sense of national unity.

Now I didn't mention the Soviets to praise them, but to point out they stirred such ire by doing what we are attempting in the way of social reform. Not sure why we think we can do any better.
Click to expand...

The Soviets weren't attempting social teform. They were simply trying to prop up a Communist dictatorship.
 
apdst said:
The Soviets weren't attempting social teform. They were simply trying to prop up a Communist dictatorship.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Soviets didnt care about puppet regimes...they cared about their quest for global domination and to the soviets, a downward and westward expansion into Afghanistan gave them two things...lucrative poppy fields, and put them one step closer to the worlds oil fields.
 
Who was the last invader to successfully take over and positively control Afghanistan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom