• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Afghanistan

Darat said:
You really think that happened? Yes a subset of some atrocities stopped but the violence continued and continues to today with the various terrorist groups still killing the like of prison officers, never mind the violence they inflict to ensure their criminal activities continue.
Click to expand...

I was considering calling it relative peace but the simple fact is that it's sure as hell a lot more peaceful than before Good Friday.
 
Once again the nice new tolerant Taliban are removing women from public life:

Female employees in the Kabul city government have been told to stay home, with work only allowed for those who cannot be replaced by men, the interim mayor of Afghanistan’s capital said on Sunday, detailing the latest restrictions on women by the new Taliban rulers.

The decision to prevent most female city workers from returning to their jobs is another sign that the*Taliban, who overran Kabul last month, are enforcing their harsh interpretation of Islam despite initial promises by some that they would be tolerant and inclusive. Under their previous rule in the 1990s, the Taliban barred girls and women from schools, jobs and public life.

...

Elsewhere in the city, the interim Kabul mayor, Hamdullah Namony, gave his first news conference since being appointed by the Taliban. He said that before the Taliban takeover last month, just under one-third of close to 3,000 city employees were women, and that they worked in all departments.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...emale-workers-told-to-stay-at-home-by-taliban

I love bad endings.
 
Arcade22 said:
I'll just point out that peace came to (North) Ireland in 1998, that is three years before 9/11 even happened. This had very little if anything to do with a lack of money or weapons from the US.

But hey, don't let such facts get in the way of your terrorism apologetics.
Click to expand...

Certainly there was a process. The real commitment that convinced people that the peace was more enduring than previous cease fires was the decommissioning of weapons, that really proceeded post 9/11.
 
Mike! said:
Retaliation, or simply engaging in the now expected normal day to day activities under the "New and Improved" Taliban?
Click to expand...
They seem to be gradually going back to their old bad habits, of when they were in power between 1996 and 2001, thinking perhaps they can survive and oppress their own people with Pakistani and Chinese help (in addition to international aid).
 
Michel H said:
They seem to be gradually going back to their old bad habits, of when they were in power between 1996 and 2001, thinking perhaps they can survive and oppress their own people with Pakistani and Chinese help (in addition to international aid).
Click to expand...

What makes you think there was ever any discontinuation of those "habits"? A slick twitter campaign doesn't change inquisition style persecutions.
 
Last edited:
trustbutverify said:
What makes you think there was ever any discontinuation of those "habits"? A slick twitter campaign doesn't change inquisition style persecutions.
Click to expand...
Those persecutions of women stopped (to some extent) when the Taliban were overthrown by the Americans in 2001.
 
trustbutverify said:
The Taliban are brutalizing their own civilians as a money making scheme?
Click to expand...
I think this is a possibility (although there are certainly other reasons).

I suspect there is a possibility of convincing them to improve by offering them money, combined with common sense arguments that many people around the world understand. But this path doesn't seem to be explored by the West, perhaps for political reasons, because they are perceived as "enemies".
 
Michel H said:
I assume this is some kind of joke.

It is possible that the Taliban are retaliating because they feel they are not getting enough money from the West: https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/f...w-york-holds-billions-from-afghanistan-2021-8.
Click to expand...

No they are doing what they did the last time they were in power: remove women from public life and effectively reduce them to the status of chattel. This is what they have been killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of Afghans for.
 
Michel H said:
I think this is a possibility (although there are certainly other reasons).

I suspect there is a possibility of convincing them to improve by offering them money, combined with common sense arguments that many people around the world understand. But this path doesn't seem to be explored by the West, perhaps for political reasons, because they are perceived as "enemies".
Click to expand...

I find the idea of bribing people to uphold human rights to be distasteful, and it would set a really bad precedent.
There is also nothing to stop the Taliban from pocketing the money and continuing to oppress the people of Afghanistan.
 
News today from Captain Obvious - Afghanistan is no longer LGBT-friendly.

This would be an issue if America's ally and enormous military client, the House of Saud, wasn't equally friendly to our rainbow pals.

And as to the OMG! The Taliban Won't Let Women Work!

Just remember that Saudi allowed women to drive cars only last year.

Blame one, blame them all, not just the ones who don't buy weapons.

(The irony that most Taliban weaponry at the start of the conflict had been provided by USA to shoot Commies is pretty thick.)
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I find the idea of bribing people to uphold human rights to be distasteful, and it would set a really bad precedent.
There is also nothing to stop the Taliban from pocketing the money and continuing to oppress the people of Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

If we're going to spend money on an extortion racket, I'd much rather spend money fighting it than enabling it.
 
Michel H said:
Because the United Nations Charter states that;

(https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law.../prohibited-and-permissible-use-law-essay.php).

The invasion of Afghanistan was neither in self-defense against an armed attack by Afghanistan (as a country) against the U.S. nor authorized by a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force.
Click to expand...

From that link:
It has also been observed that, an irregular forceful attack can prompt the use of force as in the case of 9/11 attacks where the Security Council allowed the US to use force against the terrorists.
Click to expand...

Michel H said:
One might say that the 2001 attack in the U.S. was itself a revenge attack by Muslims who felt persecuted by the U.S., who were themselves acting in self-defense.
Click to expand...

Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, what reason did Afghan Muslims have to feel persecuted by the US? They had, after all, received significant aid from America to fight the Russians. Their support for Al Qaeda was not justifiable as a reaction to anything America had done to the Afghans.

I do agree that American foreign policy, and American military intervention around the world, has been poorly thought-out, often heavy-handed, and has unquestionably generated a backlash of anti-American feeling. The long-term blanket support of Israel, regardless of Israel's own sins, has not helped.
However, two wrongs do not make a right. Killing civilians as a reprisal for other civilian deaths is not just, nor is it legal under international law.
I am still not convinced, then, that the invasion of Afghanistan was illegal. My own personal view is that it was justified: it's just a tragedy that the aftermath was that a corrupt and self-serving central government was installed, and the people of Afghanistan abandoned. Had the reconstruction been done better, the Taliban might have failed to regain power.
That, alas, will have to remain one of the 'what-ifs' of history.
 
The Atheist said:
(The irony that most Taliban weaponry at the start of the conflict had been provided by USA to shoot Commies is pretty thick.)
Click to expand...

Most of the weapons the Taliban has are low--tech weapons. IED's, AK-47s, that sort of thing. These weapons are easy to come by, and probably largely come from Pakistan.

In the 1980's, the US supplied the Mujahideen with Stinger missiles. These are high-tech weapons, and they made a decisive difference against Soviet attack helicopters. That was our main contribution. They didn't need us to supply small arms.

Many of these missiles were used up against the Soviets. Some were bought back from the Mujahideen after the Soviets left. But stinger missiles have a finite shelf life. They have to be maintained or they won't work, and neither the Mujahideen nor the Taliban had the expertise to maintain them. There was no significant stinger missile arsenal for the Taliban to inherit. Which is why you never saw US helicopters getting shot down left and right. The Taliban got an occassional helicopter with an RPG, but stinger missiles weren't a problem.

So no, the majority of the Taliban's arsenal at the start of the conflict were not supplied by the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom