Afghan resistance attacks UK political compound.

Why do you think its our duty to bring Pashtun tribespeople Western democracy that they have had no historical interest in pursuing and adopting?

 

It wasn't.

It was our militaries duty to protect our nation by taking out Al Queda and the Taliban who chose to side with them.

So what then? The historical default would be to install someone from the Northern Alliance as dictator for life, arm them up, and leave it at that.

Is that what you think we should have done? That is their tradition.

 

We agree that its not our duty to impose an alien system on Pashtun tribespeople...So far so good.

The notion of taking out what is essentially a loose confederation of worldwide religious obscurantists with no central command structure in response to a barbarous act of terrorism was a charade. AQ's camps were destroyed and its fighters killed or dispersed in Afghanistan. Which begats the question as to why US troops remained there? After all, the Taliban government was the legitimate authority in the country and it did not attack, or threaten, the USA.

We were then told that the world -that is the US- wanted a regime change because the Taliban were mistreating their own citizens. Leaving aside the fact that regime change is illegal under the auspices of the UN Charter, the question then arises why did they not leave after letting the Afghans elect another regime?

What the USA did was exactly the opposite. They imposed a puppet government headed by a man, Hamid Karzai, whom they trust because he has been linked to them for many years. He was even a paid agent for the CIA while in exile. However, as he was chosen and imposed by the American occupiers, he never had any real authority in the country (even his election as president on October 9, 2004, did not change the fact that he needs the American support to survive politically and, perhaps, physically).

He only controls the capital Kabul, and relies on the US troops and on UN Peace Keepers to keep a limited military presence in the rest of the country where the remnants of the Taliban and the warlords have the real power.

In fact the USA took the excuse of the September 11, 2001, attacks by terrorists operating from Afghanistan to occupy the country. And they want to occupy it permanently, not to make it free and democratic, but to preserve their own interests. How could a military occupied country be free and democratic?

 

No. Once the Taliban decided to side with AQ we were after them, heck, probably even before then due to accusations of active collaberation, but they had their chance. If anybody bothered throwing in some "mistreating their people" stuff, which would be fair actually, it was secondary at best.

He's got northern alliance turf squarely. The Taliban are only really a factor on the Pakistan border. As for individual warlords I'm surprised they weren't cut in for more of the pie. Or maybe they have and they aren't such a problem.

A pretty hate filled, backwater, largely illiterate, wildly corrupt, little-to-no-infrastructure country. And those are just the facts. Maybe you consider their culture to be the epitome of civilization; because that's a subjective thing. But that just means you don't think being the epitome of civilization requires all that many people to be able to read. Not even that great of resources, and getting them wouldn't be that easy. Even if we were in the business of colonialism, which we aren't, we'd have picked something else.

Our motives for going into Afganistan were pretty clear cut. AQ.

First of all, WE ARE THERE FOR OUR OWN INTERESTS. Explicitly. Our interests are shutting down the terrorist's freedom of operation within the country.

We're trying to give them freedom, prosperity, and democracy, but they only get it if they can manage that on their own, while tackling the terrorists on their own, and to the extent they can manage those on their own.

But the Taliban have mixed support to start with, and if they renounce AQ they might get a place in the countries governance.

Ruling by something other than murderous slaughter of those that offend is certainly going to be harder than how things are traditionally done in the country, and may take some getting used to. But there's a lot of groundwork down. I think the 2014 withdrawl plan might work out just fine.

 

I repeat, AQ in Afghanistan were destroyed but the US remain there which undercuts your argument that the motive for the invasion and occupation was AQ. As with the other stated justifications, it was in fact bogus.

If your interests are primarily shutting down the 'terrorists' freedom of operation as you suggest then you have failed. The invasion and occupation has been counterproductive in this regard.

US arrogance is frankly astounding to the rest of the world...They don't want your democracy least of all want it imposed on them. The imposition of democracy at the point of a gun is a contradiction in terms.

 

So are they obliterated or everywhere? Make up your mind.

The reality is a lot of them died, they lost their camps, and they currently cannot act as freely as they did, which is good. But I'm sure we didn't get all of them, and their sick mentality can spread to more. That's why Afganistan has to be able to deal with them on its own.

I believe they will someday, and that 2014 isn't unrealistic. But leave in like 2003? Ridiculous.

You're still not even offering any alternatives. We were going to take out their government for national security reasons. That was a given, and it's what we did.

What could you conceivably feel we should do now instead of trying to give them freedom, prosperity, and democracy that would be better for the afgani people?

 

Democracy is an invention of Western peoples. It is meant only for people living in Western countries or countries voluntarily under Western domination. Democracy comes out of a very specific cultural and philosophical melieu.

 

I apologize if what I said appeared unclear. What I was alluding to is although the core of AQ in Afghanistan was obliterated, no government or invading force can wipe out an idea or an aspiration no matter how warped. What is intrinsic to the policy of foreign invaders is their use of propaganda utilized as a means of providing legitimacy for such invasions. In this way, for example, "Taliban", "AQ" "Communists" etc are frequently used as catch-all terms. Moreover, AQ transcends national borders. Try to think of it as a loose confederation of nutjobs throughout the planet. With all the will in the world, no amount of invasions are going to destroy what is essentially a collection of individuals spread throughout the globe, all of whom cling to a set of ideas that are manifested as a warped obscurantist religious ideology. In fact, such a policy is misguided and counterproductive.

 

We really didnt even have to whip up any propaganda on this one, and the world was with us from square one. Mostly it still is.

But what you CAN do is shut down active training camps, and make them have to operate illegally within countries that would capture them if they could. No longer can a wanna be terrorist simply book a flight, meet others, and get some training.

I think that is part of why homeland security has been rather successful with stings as of late. Wannabe terrorists are having to try and hunt out others, and they keep finding homeland security agents.


And again, I still notice no alternatives. What would you have had us do differently?

And I think there is something of a message in demonstrating that we will come after you if you slaughter our civilians.

Does that eliminate the problem. Nope. But it makes it better.

 

What you don't want is a return to the kind of climate of MaCarthyite style witchhunts and the over-emphasis on disproportionate targetting of muslim citizens in the US that this kind of Homeland Security notion implies. I cannot speak for the US with any certainty, but here in the UK statistics show that only a tiny minority of the muslim citizens of my country who are arrested on terrorist charges and subsequently detained are found guilty of such charges - something like 0.001 per cent. I suspect the pattern is similar in the US. A far more cost-effective way of dealing with this would be the beefing-up of intelligence so as to avoid this kind of eventuality. The ineffectual targetting of communities is not only extremely financially inefficient but also alienates the very people governments'like ours are seeking to get on-side in their fight against Islamist terrorism. In other words, if Homland Security that underpins the Patriot act is not enacted well, it is likely to be counterproductive

 

66 American dead so far. Give it up. Afghanistan will never become a Western-friendly country. We've done too much damage to the prospect.

 

We?..............................

 

That's right, ' we '.

 

As far as I'm concerned, Afghanistan is welcome to a weak and corrupt central government and a bunch of regional heroin muggling warlords with a cool relationship with the West. What I don't want to see is a return of the Islamist Taliban and the victory that would give the Islamist cause and the safe haven that would give to Islamists on the run. It's not like the West can keep re-invading Afghanistan.

The only consolation I would find in an Afghanistan returned to Taliban control would be the look on the faces of Pakistan's ISI and military when they gradually realize they have nurtured a viper at their bosoms.

 

?

You're sort of changing topics here.

I'd also be curious about your source for that percentage. To have a number as low as .001% there would have to have been hundreds of thousands of arrests.

For example a quick google search finds a case with six men being found guilty.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/izzadeen-guilty-of-terror-charges-810873.html

So to maintain a .001% conviction rate, 600,000 people would have had to have been arrested.

I pretty sure I'd have heard if the UK had arrested a quarter of their Muslim population.

My understanding is that this is more the route the US is taking. Infiltrate Mosques, set up some websites, and when the wannabe terrorists start reaching out you put a fake bomb in their hands and arrest them when they push the trigger that they think will slaughter hundreds of people at a Christmas celebration or whatever.


...though again this is shifting subjects.


You know, I'm beginning to get the feeling you don't actually disagree with anything the US did in regards to Afganistan at a high level. You appreciate the cause for war, and understand that we're doing as well as we can by the Afganis after that war.

Is it that you simply don't like the attitude of the west in all this? That just because Afganistan had a violent repressive government, and was full of corruption, hate, and illiteracy is no reason for somebody to act like we're so much better than they were, but that's the attitude you feel we're projecting?

I could see us having a long term drone or special ops presence though. Sort of a semi eternal low intensity conflict.

 

No. I trust that you've kept in touch.

http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-world-news/205372-i-thought-confined-only-nazis.html

Are you going to tell us that ' hundreds ' is acceptable ?