• 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!

Taliban Says It Won't Meddle in West if Troops Are Withdrawn

The Prof said:
except, maybe, a little observation---for people who are sposed to be so fundamentally faith driven, the folks you describe sure are practical
Click to expand...
You're absolutely correct about that.
The madrassas in Pakistan (which have become a problem, as they are from the Jammat-i-Islami variety; this variety was establish by Sayyid Maududi who met and shared views with Qutb on a number of occasions. They first met during a Hajj, if I'm not mistaken ) actually do provide literacy, a school opportunity in Pakistan and F.A.T.A where the numbers are around 50% (depending on which part you're talking about) literacy.
The Taliban and A.Q. option opens doors to Pakistani/Afghan refugees and poor people who literally have nothing. They get indoctrinated to these anti-Western views because they need someone to blame for all the hardships that have occurred. The A.Q. and Taliban (I cannot say for certain, because I just don't think the information is out there, yet) provide extremely well for the families of their soldiers. These groups are poor. The people who serve them are poor.

Even the concept of killing innocent is justified in their eyes. According to Qutb, those who participate in Democracy (civilians) are just as guilty of the autocracy as the state is. So, it turned into the view of al-Zawhiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad to fight them too. Their initial purpose (post soviet defeat) was to beat the tar out of people until they won legitimacy. They literally thought there was going to be a mass uprising in favor of them.

i'd be very interested to know how you acquired such depth here, but i wouldn't want to pry
Click to expand...
Thank you for your kind words. I am highly interested on these topics, and I collect tadbits here and there. Much of it is just my interpretation of the material.


The Prof said:
oh, and...

it appears to me that

1. we've really put pakistan in a spot
Click to expand...

Pakistan is undeniably guilty of assisting Taliban and A.Q. The ISI is just as problematic than the Taliban. Some of the army generals are pro-taliban. We really lost a strong ally whenever Benazir Bhutto was assassinated by a combination of A.Q., ISI, and the Pakistani military.

Further I highly recommend Benazir Bhutto's book

If Bhutto's own life reads like a Greek tragedy, she was nonetheless a very modern politician, and the book she has written is part manifesto, part spin job, part selective history and part term-paper analysis. It shows Bhutto in the many guises the public in both the West and her native Pakistan came to know: an Oxford-educated debate champion, adept at invoking Spengler and T. S. Eliot to make her points; a savvy and self-dramatizing campaigner, adroit at charming members of the Washington power elite as well as the disenfranchised poor in Pakistan, whom she pledged to represent; a determined heir to her father's political legacy, who found duty turning over "years of pain, suffering, sacrifice and separation" into "an all consuming passion."
Click to expand...

2. the ulitmate success of obama's plan for obama's war is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT on both the will and the ability of zardari to do some of the heaviest lifting

he's bhutto's widower, if i recall
Click to expand...

He is. He's corrupt. He's also half the leader Bhutto was. Not to mention he is weak, and the civilian population is suffering for it.


3. dick durbin, whip, illinois ear of obama, when pressed on fns today about his support or not of obama's afghan plan, answered---i understand the president's position, i'm skeptical that 30K troops will make a difference

but you will fund it, chris wallace (60 minutes mike's son) premised

durbin---well, i'm gonna meet with the president...

me: it will be funded, with republican support, but there will be a lot of cya grousing from dupes like durbin
Click to expand...

the Partisan politics we've been hearing about the troop surge is always going to be exaggerated. It was and is not realistic to provide the troop amount to do in Afghanistan what was done in Iraq (estimated 600,000 troop total).
But you have to realize that alot of the troops we have in Afghanistan and will be sending to Afghanistan have played in the sand before (Iraq). Our military is the strongest in the world. We had growing pains with Iraq, as it was a theater we both forgot and weren't used to. We know how to fight insurgencies. We have a damn good military staff McChrystal is a brilliant man. Mehsuds better run.
 
i'm afraid they will run

to pakistan

where the nukes are

according to tons of talk around the sunday circuit, they pretty much already have

i remember mr bhutto's corruption, he had to step down, he had to leave the country, he rules thru his son (i may be mistaken, my memory)

perhaps you recall during the campaign, way back, the dem primaries:

biden was running against his future boss, one of the early debates

ms hillary of course was there in the center

but i recall specifically mr biden calling out young barry for his pledge to go unilaterally into pakistan if need be

i also very certainly remember how biden, longtime chair of foreign relations, always passed himself off as particular pakistan expert

for at least ten years, affable, gaffable biden was sole voice in the land warning that pakistan is by far the most politically unstable of the nuked nations

moving into pakistan to root out jihadists is just too potentially destabilizing to islamabad

at least, that's been a cornerstone of responsible united states foreign policy since forever

my point---obama has pledged pretty hard that he'd go into pakistan "if opportunity presented bin laden" (that's how old is this rhetoric)

everyone's pretty much forgotten

just like obama's super hi priority personal diplomacy with ahmedinejad, centerpiece of the president's campaign

i just feel the real problem is not as much in afghanistan (anymore) tho obama is

i don't know, i certainly defer to you, but i'd worry greatly about what an obamite movement into pakistan might do to its domestic situation

you're blowing me away, by the way
 
Last edited:
I won't go into great detail, but obviously the biggest unnerving uncertainty is that Usama bin Laden acquires any form of nuclear material. al Qa'ida al-Jihad with any form of HEU or HEP (Uranium or Plutonium) will make the Cold War look like we were playing patty-cake with the Soviet Union; no doubt that martial law would take effect almost immediately in almost every major US city, probably every major city in the world.

The Pakistani nuclear stockpile is heavily guarded by 30,000 of Pakistan's most elite troops (the Pakistani's aren't just worried about al Qa'ida taking from it, but also sabotage from India).

Unless there are entire battalions of rogue Pakistani military personnel, then we shouldn't worry about Jihadists acquiring a nuclear bomb or missile. However, there are other scenarios that could make the situation difficult. The Jihadists don't necessarily need to even have possession of the materials, they just need to get it to reach critical mass.

The biggest threat wouldn't be nuclear, wouldn't chemical, it would be biological weapons. However, I do not think the organization is well enough to be worrying about anything other than getting blown to miniature Jihadis
 
Ethereal said:
Blah-blah-blah-blah. How about you stop pretending to be a damned mind-reader and simply address the words I've written?

Where have I said I supported nation-building?

Where have I said I supported invading Iraq?
Click to expand...

When you make the following two statements you are endorsing nation building and you endorsed the invasion of Iraq. You can deny it all you want but it's right there for all to see. No need to a be a mind reader.

Ethereal said:
A functional democracy that is friendly toward civilized nations.
Click to expand...

Ethereal said:
Also, we're winning in Iraq. It will be a model country within the next decade.
Click to expand...

Ethereal said:
Oh, I haven't? Then why are you making such stupid assumptions?
Click to expand...

BTW why the abusive language? Why so easily provoked? Do I make you feel inadequate?
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
There are several pending queries you have failed to answer, so the failure is utterly and completley yours.
Click to expand...

You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it so. I responded to all your queries.

At least you didn't name call this time. ;)

Night night. I have a living to make in the morning.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
When you make the following two statements you are endorsing nation building and you endorsed the invasion of Iraq. You can deny it all you want but it's right there for all to see. No need to a be a mind reader.







BTW why the abusive language? Why so easily provoked? Do I make you feel inadequate?
Click to expand...

I do deny it, because it's totally untrue.

I never supported the invasion and I do not support nation-building as a basis for foreign policy, BUT I am not so rigid ideologically that I cannot make pragmatic exceptions when the circumstances merit.

I believe our foreign policy should endeavor to be non-interventionist, but ultimately that it should situational and flexible.

If we leave Iraq prematurely it will threaten global stability along with American security.

If we leave Afghanistan prematurely it will threaten American security very severely. AQ is just waiting for us to quit; they need a victory so that they can reorganize and concentrate on the American homeland. It seems some Americans are already starting to forget 9/11, like they won't try to attack us again and again; this is a zero-sum game and AQ has no intention of losing.
 
Arch Enemy said:
I won't go into great detail, but obviously the biggest unnerving uncertainty is that Usama bin Laden acquires any form of nuclear material. al Qa'ida al-Jihad with any form of HEU or HEP (Uranium or Plutonium) will make the Cold War look like we were playing patty-cake with the Soviet Union; no doubt that martial law would take effect almost immediately in almost every major US city, probably every major city in the world.

The Pakistani nuclear stockpile is heavily guarded by 30,000 of Pakistan's most elite troops (the Pakistani's aren't just worried about al Qa'ida taking from it, but also sabotage from India).

Unless there are entire battalions of rogue Pakistani military personnel, then we shouldn't worry about Jihadists acquiring a nuclear bomb or missile. However, there are other scenarios that could make the situation difficult. The Jihadists don't necessarily need to even have possession of the materials, they just need to get it to reach critical mass.

The biggest threat wouldn't be nuclear, wouldn't chemical, it would be biological weapons. However, I do not think the organization is well enough to be worrying about anything other than getting blown to miniature Jihadis
Click to expand...

thanks, thanks

i think worries in pakistan are 2

that is, it's not just the potential for bad guys to get their hands on weapons

no, an equal concern is possible alterations to pakistan's domestic political landscape

i really don't know enough about internal pakistani politics, but i do get the impression they're not real stable

and i wonder how real is the possibility of some really dangerous movement making political advances in that nuked up country thru LEGITIMATE or constitutional means

and i think obama's afghan plan puts some real pressures on pakistan's makeup

do you think zardari is gonna take on with whole heart some of the more frightening tribal elements within his country?

and even if he were wont, is he able?

obama's escalation in afghanistan is gonna increase the emigration of terror types into pakistan?

obama's afghan plan is too dependent on zardari to do his share?

i ask you, my friend
 
The Prof said:
do you think zardari is gonna take on with whole heart some of the more frightening tribal elements within his country?

and even if he were wont, is he able?

obama's escalation in afghanistan is gonna increase the emigration of terror types into pakistan?

obama's afghan plan is too dependent on zardari to do his share?

i ask you, my friend
Click to expand...

The extent of Zardari's power is highly questionable. I believe tribal/Talibani elements on beginning to collapse on the Paskistani military
A platoon of Taliban fighters attacked a Pakistani Army checkpoint in South Waziristan in a region where a peace agreement with the Taliban is in effect.

Upwards of 40 Taliban fighters opened fire on checkpoint at a bridge in Wana, the main town in South Waziristan, killing one soldier and suffering six of their own in a counterattack.
Click to expand...

Wana is under the control of Mullah Nazir, the leader of the Taliban forces in the western Wazir tribal areas of the agency. Pakistan's military and intelligence services consider Nazir and his followers "good Taliban" as they do not openly seek the overthrow of the Pakistani state. However, Nazir openly supports Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden, and wages jihad in Afghanistan; more senior al Qaeda leaders have been killed in Nazir's tribal areas during the US air campaign than in those of any other Taliban leader in Pakistan.
Click to expand...

The walls are beginning to fall on Pakistan, and the deals it has made with the devils in F.A.T.A are going to come back and haunt them. We are also seeing Indian elements in Khyber.

A Pakistani military commander said the current operation in the Khyber tribal agency has succeeded in clearing the Taliban from a vital area
------------
In the operation, 61 Lashkar-e-Islam fighters were killed and 87 other fighters including Uzbeks and Afghans, have been detained, Fayyaz told the media. Enemy bases, bunkers, and vehicles have been destroyed in the six-day-long operation. Fayyaz also claimed that the military found evidence that India was providing weapons to the Lashkar-e-Islam.
Click to expand...

I think the Military is the power in Pakistan. The civilian government is fragile, and can barely keep itself legitimate. There are fears that there's a proxy war going on between India and Pakistan for power in Afghanistan.

In Pakistan there is increasing suspicion that India will use its influence in Afghanistan to further destabilise its troubled border region.
------------------------------
Robert Wirsing, a professor at Georgetown University in Doha, told Al Jazeera: "There is no question that Pakistanis are inclined to exaggerate a lot of things and no doubt the allegations made about India are from time to time exaggerated - it plays into their overall strategy.
"Nevertheless, both Pakistan and India are not above a variety of covert or clandestine activities. They do what they feel they must in order to protect their national interests and strategic interests in this region.
"Afghanistan is certainly an important strategic arena in which they engage in these kinds of activities ... its tit-for-tat," he said.
Click to expand...

We'll see.
 
Arch Enemy said:
I won't go into great detail, but obviously the biggest unnerving uncertainty is that Usama bin Laden acquires any form of nuclear material. al Qa'ida al-Jihad with any form of HEU or HEP (Uranium or Plutonium) will make the Cold War look like we were playing patty-cake with the Soviet Union; no doubt that martial law would take effect almost immediately in almost every major US city, probably every major city in the world.

The Pakistani nuclear stockpile is heavily guarded by 30,000 of Pakistan's most elite troops (the Pakistani's aren't just worried about al Qa'ida taking from it, but also sabotage from India).

Unless there are entire battalions of rogue Pakistani military personnel, then we shouldn't worry about Jihadists acquiring a nuclear bomb or missile. However, there are other scenarios that could make the situation difficult. The Jihadists don't necessarily need to even have possession of the materials, they just need to get it to reach critical mass.

The biggest threat wouldn't be nuclear, wouldn't chemical, it would be biological weapons. However, I do not think the organization is well enough to be worrying about anything other than getting blown to miniature Jihadis
Click to expand...


Good observation about the cold war and the Soviet Union. The soviets may have been despots, but they were at least sane. The same can't be said for the Taliban.

Now if only you're right about the Taliban not being able to get hold of Pakistani nuclear weapons. Just how stable do you think Pakistan is just now?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Good observation about the cold war and the Soviet Union. The soviets may have been despots, but they were at least sane. The same can't be said for the Taliban.

Now if only you're right about the Taliban not being able to get hold of Pakistani nuclear weapons. Just how stable do you think Pakistan is just now?
Click to expand...

I am not an expert on Pakistani Politics, but all indicators do lead to a near failed-state.

The central authority in Pakistan seems to be distant to the majority of the people in Pakistan-- it seems the authority is just not there.

Now this does not necessarily mean that Pakistan is going rogue. The majority of the Pakistani population do not sympathize with the Taliban and Jamaat-i-Islami extremists, but this also means that the money we funnel to the Government or intelligence services may not be used for building the infrastructure of those who need it.

I am not too certain that there is much of an increase in the stability of the country whenever the military incharge, this would be an interesting topic to further explore.
 
Arch Enemy said:
I am not an expert on Pakistani Politics, but all indicators do lead to a near failed-state.

The central authority in Pakistan seems to be distant to the majority of the people in Pakistan-- it seems the authority is just not there.

Now this does not necessarily mean that Pakistan is going rogue. The majority of the Pakistani population do not sympathize with the Taliban and Jamaat-i-Islami extremists, but this also means that the money we funnel to the Government or intelligence services may not be used for building the infrastructure of those who need it.

I am not too certain that there is much of an increase in the stability of the country whenever the military incharge, this would be an interesting topic to further explore.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would, particularly if there is a possibility that the Taliban could take over that failed state. I don't think the majority of the population of Afganistan sympathizes with the Taliban, either, but it seems a not so remote possibility that they could take over that nation without the US presence.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, it would, particularly if there is a possibility that the Taliban could take over that failed state. I don't think the majority of the population of Afganistan sympathizes with the Taliban, either, but it seems a not so remote possibility that they could take over that nation without the US presence.
Click to expand...

I don't think the problem has ever been with the Afghan sympathy with the Taliban ,as many of those we refer to as "Afghans" are the other minorities

Ethnic groups: Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%

Definition: This entry provides an ordered listing of ethnic groups starting with the largest and normally includes the percent of total population.

Source: CIA World Factbook - Unless otherwise noted, information in this page is accurate as of September 17, 2009
Click to expand...

We see the Pashtun's being the nearest to majority (the Taliban is Pashtun, but holds some from across the line).

Because the "Afghans" and not "Taliban" or "Taliban sympathizers" are not a majority Pashtun, they've always been treated harshly by the Taliban rule. They're the ones (especially in the North) who will not, under any circumstance, be sympathetic to the plight of the Taliban (which is currently getting it's cranium smashed in by the good ol U.S.of.A)
 
Ethereal said:
I do deny it, because it's totally untrue.

I never supported the invasion and I do not support nation-building as a basis for foreign policy, BUT I am not so rigid ideologically that I cannot make pragmatic exceptions when the circumstances merit.

I believe our foreign policy should endeavor to be non-interventionist, but ultimately that it should situational and flexible.

If we leave Iraq prematurely it will threaten global stability along with American security.

If we leave Afghanistan prematurely it will threaten American security very severely. AQ is just waiting for us to quit; they need a victory so that they can reorganize and concentrate on the American homeland. It seems some Americans are already starting to forget 9/11, like they won't try to attack us again and again; this is a zero-sum game and AQ has no intention of losing.
Click to expand...

O.K. fair enough. I stand corrected.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
lie #1




lie #2





suspecting lie #3 :shrug:
Click to expand...


Well you know what they say about folks that go around accusing everyone of being a liar. It's the same thing they say about folks that are paranoid someone will steal from them.

Gotta go. My lunch hour is over. I'm self employed. If I don't work I don't get paid and I'm sure as hell am not going to waste my time responding to your name calling.

BTW consider yourself ignored from here on out.
 
Last edited:
EnigmaO01 said:
Well you know what they say about folks that go around accusing everyone of being a liar. It's the same thing they say about folks that are paranoid someone will steal from them.

Gotta go. My lunch hour is over. I'm self employed. If I don't work I don't get paid and I'm sure as hell am not going to waste my time responding to your name calling.

BTW consider yourself ignored from here on out.
Click to expand...




:lol: You ignoring me doesn' mean much, you don't respond to my questions anyway. :shrug:
 
RDS said:
Yeah, but they gonna meddle all the more in Afghanistan.


Taliban Says It Won't Meddle in West if Troops Are Withdrawn - WSJ.com
Click to expand...

Thank you, Taliban, for choosing not to meddle in the West. In return, I promise to help you upgrade communications in your own land by agreeing to be your mailman. Here are the lyrics to a song I wrote about it a couple of years ago (Sung to the tune of "Let me be Your Mailman" by George Straitt):

Taliban Mailman - By DanaRhea

Let me be your mailman down in Afghanistan
Dropping off some packages to all the Taliban
You like to play with airplanes, well that's not very nice
You've been messing with my country, now it's time to pay the price

Like the Wild Wild West and the pony express
I'm gonna bring you down
Your women will be wailing
When I roll into town
Like a man possessed, I come fully dressed
To burn and slash and bash
I'm ready to go postal and
I'm gonna kick your ass

Hey Mr. bin Laden this one says it's from your mom
But what it doesn't say is that it holds an atom bomb
I'll be out of your country 'fore the fallout falls on me
And I'll leave you the middle finger from the Statue of Liberty

Like the Wild Wild West and the pony express
I'm gonna bring you down
Your women will be wailing
But I won't wear a frown
Like a man possessed, I come fully dressed
To burn and slash and bash
I'm ready to go postal and
Allah won't save your ass

REPEAT CHORUS

I'm gonna kick your ass
Allah won't save your ass
I'm gonna....kick....your.... ass.

:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
:lol: You ignoring me doesn' mean much, you don't respond to my questions anyway. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Accusing someone of lying is not the same as asking a question.

Especially when you accuse them of lying about you not calling them names:


At least you didn't name call this time.
lie #2
Click to expand...

which logically means that you did call him names, but he didn't recognize it. If you're going to call names, and hopefully get yourself banned for it, then you have to be more obvious about it.

and, when you accuse someone of lying about something that is not relevant to the topic at hand, and is insulting to say the least:

Night night. I have a living to make in the morning.

suspecting lie #3
Click to expand...

that simply calls into question your own credibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom