However they got there lots of them were lifted in Afghanistan and taken to Guantanamo and they were not Afghans.
Dunno Dev, ISI, MOSSAD, CIA, Taliban, AlQaeda all in cahoots? Sounds like something out of a dick francis novel
are you sure? youre point was that they were one section of afghanistan, an ethnic minority if you will. However the taliban are not one specific kind of peoples. It was/is a political organisation calling themselves 'students' made up of inigenous afghani's
You initially posted this: I replied with this: You then answered with this: Which I corrected with this: I clearly didn't say "who mentioned/suggested suicide bombers". The UN agree with me. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...assacres-in-recent-years-mullah-mohammed-omar Your turn. That's not what I'm saying at all. It's possible to have a problem with a section of a particular society without having a problem with everyone in that society. And they were also killing and oppressing lots of their own fellow citizens and running part of an international drugs trade. I certainly wouldn't describe that as, "minding their own business, running the country as they saw fit", and I'm not sure why you're comfortable with that description, either. Where do you get this stuff from? When did I suggest that the Taleban are an ethnic minority? It certainly appears that they did target one particular ethnicity for extermination though, presumably due to their largely Shia faith.
the issue with the shia and indeed the communists is/was a little more complex than portrayed. the taliban were in fact at war and fighting uprisings by shia and communists and getting support for it at times from the very people who are painting them as evil now. how do you do that multi quoting thing? I feel that may help provide some direction to thhis discussion re the first bit. Not ignoring your other questions, makes it easier if i can do the whole blue boxy things. answered others though
You can multi-quote by using the Go Advanced option or the option itself in the bottom right, but I prefer to just open Reply With Quote in another tab and paste it across, as it's less hassle. Feel free to edit the last comment with that method, as it's all a little confusing at the moment and I'm off to bed.
for the first bit here is what happened you in response to ciaran said When you talked about facing certain death, I assumed that you were talking about suicide bombers. you and ciaran then had a discussion around issues including suicide bombings my comment If people seriously believe that ALL the attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan were suicide attacks then you need your head read was a general comment and i did clarify this by , emphasising the word ALL. you responded with I don't think that anyone suggested that they were. are you not referring to suicide bombers here? If yes, then this is you mentioning/suggesting suicide bombers. i have added 'mentioning' as i couldnt multiquote etc as explained You are mistaken, there is no dishonesty on my part here, I was addressing something specifically, look it up read back you responded to a poster saying you had assumed he meant suicide bombers, then asked who mentioned/suggested suicide bombers. I would multiquote etc but cant and in all honesty couldnt be bothered to quote specifics by going back and looking as i lose the train of thought forgive me for saying but you tend to be a bit pedantic, and whilst happy to make assumptions pick people up if they do the same to you. It is also my belief that you forget what your point/argument is and start looking for 'fights' where there isnt any and whats the fascination with 'prove me wrong'? you do know that this is GC and there are no prizes etc, you dont 'win' anything. As far as I am concerned, i have a viewpoint thbat i put across if i agree/disagree with something/someone. Its not personal. It certainly isnt a 'victory'. Besides which 'i disagree' or the UN says this or so and so says x,y and z doesnt make anyone right. context has to be applied as ciaran said to you earlier, if a British soldier blew himself up for the cause he would be a hero (these are my words I am using now), I dont think the brits or yanks are going to say 'blimey these taliban are tough ****s'
^^ I fail to see how British soldiers blowing up unarmed civilians would mean we would classify them as heroes. Care to elaborate? And when you're talking about a group so extreme that this is justice: please log in to view this image then I don't see how they could ever be portrayed as the victims of some oppressive western occupational force... If you think the Taliban are the voice of the Afghani people then you are very misguided.
says who? you? and you are qualified because? as i said read the thread in context random pictures of US propaganda or US reports on those 'evil' taliban dont impress me or indeed fool me, considering they were the same people invited to texas for oil purposes and given $40m + by the yanks
Yea I've seen them. I've also seen video footage of Americans bombing British troops. As far as I was aware it's not a deliberate attempt to kill civilians. If you care to direct me towards footage of Western forces deliberately killing unarmed civilians and us celebrating that then go ahead. Furthermore, some of your comments are ridiculous: "how so? the war is against afghanistan, the taliban being people of afghanistan" How are the Taliban the Afghan people? The war was never against Afghanistan but the Taliban forces. It seems to me that the people of Kabul much prefer their new found stability, even if insecurity still exists in terms of suicide bombers. As for your comment on the Taliban running the country as they see fit until we barged in, it's called a dictatorship - Totalitarian regimes like that tend to do as they please. RE Time, yes I realise it's propaganda, I'm not that stupid. However, it doesn't change the fact that it happened though. The fact is, if the Afghans wanted the Taliban and their oppression back it seems to me that they would be rebelling against the US and fighting with the Taliban, which isn't happening.
why do you think the taliban are not defeated, despite their small numbers? because apart from the select few paraded on tele they still have alot of support stop believing the hype
A few rogue soldiers do not represent the forces they fight for, not that I'm aware of the specific abuses you refer to... For the Taliban, attrocities like that in the picture were and are routinely dished out as regular punishments. WHy not listen to accounts from people who lived through the Taliban's brutal regime and what every-day life was like. As for oil reserves, give it a rest. The US have spent billions upon billions on Afghanistan. I'm sure Obama could have pulled out and perhaps used the money to better the economy and get himself re-elected rather than sink more on trying to secure Afghanistan. As for civilian casualties, they happen in war. As I have stated, even Britain suffers from friendly fire. It appears, though, that you've ignored the part of my former comment where I asked if you'd provide me evidence or any incident where innocent civilians were murdered by western forces? Furthermore, I haven't heard the the new Iraqi, Afghan and Libyan governments condemn western forces for what they've done in liberating their countries. Slating the US is one thing, but defending the Taliban is something entirely different. I suppose you think Al-Qaeda are misunderstood too - should I believe all the 'hype' that surrounds them too? P.S. As for the Taliban not being defeated, it's hard to defeat an enemy too cowardly to put on a uniform and stand and fight like men. They'd rather hide amongst the civilians like rats.
you need to read up on your history and see what was being said up untill1999 re the taliban, by sources such as the chritian science who in 1999 claimed schools for women/girls were being built or that before the taliban took over, Amnesty International described the women's conditions in 1995 as follows: " Women and girls all over Afghanistan live in constant fear of being raped by armed guards. For years, armed guards have been allowed to torture them in this way without fear of reprimand from their leaders. In fact, rape is apparently condoned by most leaders as a means of terrorizing conquered populations and or rewarding soldiers." Some sources went as far as saying They have managed to achieve an end to the chaos of the Mujahideen era, successfully dis-armed warlords and patched together most parts of Afghanistan under a unitary military, economic and political authority. Pictures like what you show and rape and murder were the norm, the taliban were credited as putting a stop to this. As for the oil. give it a rest you say? the International Herald Tribunal reports that in the summer of 1998, “the Clinton administration was talking with the Taleban about potential pipeline routes to carry oil and natural gas out of Turkmenistan to the Indian Ocean by crossing Afghanistan and Pakistan the New York Times similarly reported, “The Clinton Administration has taken the view that a Taliban victory... would act as a counterweight to Iran... and would offer the possibility of new trade routes that could weaken Russian and Iranian influence in the region the Wall Street Journal reporting that the main interests of American and other Western elites lie in making Afghanistan “a prime transhipment route for the export of Central Asia’s vast oil, gas and other natural resources”. “Like them or not,” the Journal continues without fear of contradiction, “the Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace in Afghanistan at this moment in history.” the US were not able to 'control' the taliban. and as tony blair said in hi interview the west was looking for reasons to invade, 9/11 gave them an excuse. I dont defend the taliban as such, just hate how people believe the hype. re alqaeda i bet you dont know jack about them but will spout on anyway so you think the taliban in civvies and a rifle taking on the might of the USA and its allies with their mases of artillary etc is cowardice? have word. In war you do what you have to do, with what you have. I laugh when i hear pussies crying about the wrong boots or not enough armour etc.
Pussies? I bet the closest you've been to war has been COD ffs. If the Taliban cared so much about their country rather than their selfish cause then they would have entered talks by now to try and end the war and stop more innocents dying. Why can't they realise that they are no in the minority and now their grip has been loosened Afghanis are speaking out against them. As for the crux of your comment - I won't deny that the Taliban were seen as the lesser of two evils back then. I agree that they're not opportunistic and so the chance of a random rape wasn't a possibility. That doesn't change the fact that they are brutally fundemantalist and their regime reflected that. Men were threatened to join them or face the consequences and attrocities to women were commonplace in the name of justice. In similar terms, lest we forget how Hitler was applauded in his early years and won Time man of the year in 1938. Why? Because back then he was a better alternative to "the commies". There is too much here really to argue about and each one could have it's own thread. My main point is I fail to see how the Taliban now represent the Afghani people and can be considered virtuous people. They are an extremist militia and they had a strong hold over Afghanistan with massive censorship and no free and fair democratic elections during their rule.
yes pussies. dont do games, but have a family military background. the taliban did/were negotiating. some just didnt like it as it wasnt going their way. and if you believe the majority of afghanis are speaking out against them youre nuts. their biggest mistake/naivety was they were simply not good at politics. their principles were too stringent. they stuck by their convictions/beliefs and bowed to no one. i kind of admire that personally as to your last comments see my views on roy hodgson, had the right intentions, wasnt fully supported, back stabbed by a few internally, never given time or resources made out to be something bad because it suited
I think it's fair to say that the Taleban are not cowards. Cave dwelling medeavalists with scant regard for human life they certainly are, but cowards they are not.
My point about you being wrong wasn't an attempt at one-upmanship or trying to win anything, but that you were misrepresenting what I'd said. I pick people up when they claim that I'm saying something that I clearly haven't, which you've done repeatedly, both on this article and others. In all honesty I think that anyone debating with you about anything concerning the actions of any Muslims is wasting their time. You apply an utterly biased lens to those that share your faith and make excuses for the most disgusting actions imaginable, including massacres by the Taleban and death threats made in the West by extremists. You believe anything bad about the US or UK without fail, yet when similar claims are made against Islamic extremists you dismiss them, often despite them being made by the same sources.
