Afghanistan

[Dill]

(08-26-2021, 08:44 PM)samhain Wrote: One thing I do not get: if you're part of the Taliban or even ISIS, what the hell are you thinking killing American troops (or allowing them to be killed) as they are trying to leave you're country?  You finally have control after 20 years and there's almost no chance that Biden is changing his mind about withdrawal barring some kind of incident exactly like this one.

The American public on both the right and left had lost it's taste for war with no end in sight.  That brand of terrorism dropped down the list of American priorities a good bit with us being too busy hating each other to bother anymore.  We're more interested in accusing each other of being terrorists than we are in worrying about terrorism abroad.  

Now, I'd say that's about to change.  if anything would re-ignite the public's taste for occupation and bloodshed in Afghanistan it's the killing of Americans as they are trying to leave.

I can speculate about the bolded. 

I don't see any evidence that the Taliban want to kill American troops. Rather the opposite.

They are intent on setting up a state which will have a modicum of international relations, especially with countries like Pakistan,
China, and Russia, and to some degree Usbekistan and Tajikstan. I believe they will take over Afghanistan's seat at the UN.

The sooner the Americans are gone, the less resistance to all their goals. 

ISIS is an altogether different cup of tea--unless it has morphed into a new variant of the original ideology.

Their goal is to set up their own Islamic Caliphate. If they are like their Syrian-Iraqi parent, they won't want to share power or legitimacy with the Taliban. And they won't have normalized relations with other countries. Unless they have changed, I don't see them getting along with the Taliban at all.  

If they are like their parent, it would be in their interest to attack American checkpoints, killing Americans and Taliban and innnocent civilians alike, leaving the US and Taliban to hopefully come to blows, disrupt the exit, create chaos.

Apparently they have already been fighting the taliban in at least one eastern province.

[Vas Deferens]

You are two intelligent people who care about similar core values. Just saying.

[Dill]

(08-26-2021, 10:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sincerely, this is way past boring. You'll continue to ignore points made and retort with long winded, overly complex, "academic" explanations. You continue ignoring a major problem and I'll stop rubbing your face in it. Deal?

Now back to the actual topic of the thread, which is Islamic extremists taking over a country and reinstituting barbaric, bronze age type governance.

No deal. I have no losses to cut.

You began this disagreement with a claim that comparisons between Americans and taliban were “inflammatory” and served no purpose. YOU set the topic of debate.

You expanded this to include comparisons to any “human scum” from authoritarian regimes.

I explained why social scientists Compare authoritarian regimes in service to democratic principles, and why right wingers (but pretty much no one else) dislike this use of historical knowledge.

The challenge to dispute that “overly complex” rationale is what “bored” you. Sincerely. No other “major problem” here.

[Belsnickel]

(08-26-2021, 05:42 PM)Goalpost Wrote: The initial word is that the Taliban is not responsible for today's attack. There is a legit question though that a suicide bomber made it thru their checkpoint.

As some guys on my social media have said, though, the Taliban may not have made the attack, but it is highly likely they allowed it to happen because the pros of it occurring vastly outweighed the cons.

Put into meme form:

[Goalpost]

(08-27-2021, 07:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: As some guys on my social media have said, though, the Taliban may not have made the attack, but it is highly likely they allowed it to happen because the pros of it occurring vastly outweighed the cons.

Put into meme form:

Cant argue with any of this.  The fact ISIS spared the Taliban..reports are that no Taliban soldiers were killed from this....suggests a possibility that a brief alliance occurred.  

[BigPapaKain]

(08-27-2021, 08:18 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Cant argue with any of this.  The fact ISIS spared the Taliban..reports are that no Taliban soldiers were killed from this....suggests a possibility that a brief alliance occurred.  

The enemy of my enemy.

[GMDino]

(08-27-2021, 08:45 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: The enemy of my enemy.

But the last administration ended ISIS.



This was actually ISIS-X or ISIS-K according to the very stable genius.  

"That's the new ISIS-X, where they broke away -- or ISIS-K. They'll have an ISIS-X pretty soon, which is gonna be worse than ISIS-K" -- Trump pic.twitter.com/2uwNokcMWo

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 27, 2021

 

So it in NO way is a reflection of anything Trump did.

[Mickeypoo]

(08-19-2021, 07:02 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: What I find interesting with this situation is that a lot of people are chalking it up to "Eh, what else was Biden supposed to do, it was going to be bad no matter what we did"........ Basically giving Biden a pass on one of the most, if not the most embarrassing thing to watch the US do in the last 20 years.

I can only imagine what the headlines would be had Trump did this. 

"Trump shows our allies we cannot be trusted after embarrassing exjt from Afghanistan"

"Trumps exit from Afghanistan is a horrifying reminder of the impulsivity of an unhinged president"

"Trump flees with tail tucked as thousands left to die in Afghanistan"

"Trump steps on the graves of all the American lives that were lost in America's longest war"

"Trump shows he's no real leader when it comes to war time decisions. Should impeachment be on the table?"


Oddly enough, I must say I am utterly shocked to see that CNN has ACTUALLY done some fair reporting on this event. Even their top news headline this morning reads "Biden can no longer get credit simply for not being Trump". Nevermind the fact that CNN literally just admitted Biden was getting a pass simply because he wasn't Trump, but it seems like even they now are realizing the magnitude of what has unfolded under Biden.

I don't care if people hate Trump, that's "whatever" to me at this point. But for people to take this situation and twist and turn it around to either blame Trump or just throw their hands up and go "Eh, what else could we do" is absolutely appalling. People want to talk about how Trump destroyed American credibility around the world during his 4 years in office? Well, Biden in my opinion just won the "losing credibility" gold medal and did it in record time.

100% true.  And I will throw in that Nancy/Dems would be screaming impeachment, the headlines would be far worse, and 75%+ on this forum would be in agreement and calling Trump a murdering dictator who is actively destroying America and it's credibility among other things.

I mean, if CNN is calling Biden out, can you imagine what they would be doing to Trump?

But hey, #anyonebuttrump, so who cares if some Americans die and we look completely incompetent and weak.  Nothing to see here.  Everybody else's fault.  As long as it's #anyonebuttrump      Derp.

Wokeism, Liberalism, Progressivism............the ideology fueling the downfall of America.

I will end with this because lot's still won't recognize this fact.........It is not the fact we are leaving, it is the way it was done.  It is a very easy concept to understand.  Amazing how so many won't acknowledge this and want to blame others.

[BigPapaKain]

(08-27-2021, 10:35 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I will end with this because lot's still won't recognize this fact.........It is not the fact we are leaving, it is the way it was done.  It is a very easy concept to understand.  Amazing how so many won't acknowledge this and want to blame others.

Who hasn't acknowledged that? Pretty sure most people have raked Biden over the coals for how it was handled (as opposed to how the last guy handled, say, a pandemic and still has people supporting how he did it despite the massive body count).

[Dill]

(08-27-2021, 08:45 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: The enemy of my enemy.

In this case, the enemy of enemy is also my enemy.

The one I’ll be fighting when the Americans are gone.

[Dill]

(08-27-2021, 07:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: As some guys on my social media have said, though, the Taliban may not have made the attack, but it is highly likely they allowed it to happen because the pros of it occurring vastly outweighed the cons.

I don’t think it “highly likely” there was some taliban ok for a suicide bomber.

A suicide bomber from an enemy you’ve been fighting for 2 years—how easy would that be to control? If no western journalist has reported taliban deaths that is hardly clinching evidence.

I don’t know for sure if there was collusion, but at first whiff, this reminds me of February 2003 when neocons were sure that sworn enemies Saddam and Al qaeda were working together because “they ALL hate us”.

[Mickeypoo]

(08-26-2021, 04:45 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Like why in the actual **** would you do that?

Keep that list, send in a few recovery teams under cover of night, profit (in this instance meaning not sending your enemies a long list of targets).

Because Biden and his Admin are completely incompetent morons.  

[Au165]

(08-27-2021, 11:12 AM)Dill Wrote: I don’t think it “highly likely” there was some taliban ok for a suicide bomber.  

A suicide bomber from an enemy you’ve been fighting for 2 years—how easy would that be to control? If no western journalist has reported taliban deaths that is hardly clinching evidence.

I don’t know for sure if there was collusion, but at first whiff, this reminds me of February 2003 when neocons were sure that sworn enemies Saddam and Al qaeda were working together because “they ALL hate us”.

You don't need collusion at the organization level, you just need it at the individual level. If Al Qaeda had a sympathetic guard or two at a check point that's all they actually had to do.

[Dill]

(08-27-2021, 11:28 AM)Au165 Wrote: You don't need collusion at the organization level, you just need it at the individual level. If Al Qaeda had a sympathetic guard or two at a check point that's all they actually had to do.

Sure that’s possible. Taliban don’t have the chain of command control of trained military. Maybe some guy at a checkpoint was
related to some ISIS member and didn't much care if the Taliban got the Americans out clean. But wouldn't he at least have to insure that his own crew weren't injured? Or perhaps he was "disgruntled" with the movement and sympathetic to ISIS? No one higher up the chain would wonder why none of his crew were injured? Do we know for sure no Taliban were injured because none were reported?

I just don’t see why any of that, while possible, would be “highly likely”. There is plenty of reason why ISIS would do this on its own.

Occam’s razor works on terrorists too.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-27-2021, 04:32 AM)Dill Wrote: No deal. I have no losses to cut.

You began this disagreement with a claim that comparisons between Americans and taliban were “inflammatory” and served no purpose. YOU set the topic of debate.

Yes, much like comparisons to Nazis they serve no valid purpose other than to tie the equated groups together.

Quote:You expanded this to include comparisons to any “human scum” from authoritarian regimes.

Yeah, for the exact same reason.  Duh. 

Quote:I explained why social scientists Compare authoritarian regimes in service to democratic principles, and why right wingers (but pretty much no one else) dislike this use of historical knowledge.

Yes, I'm sure left wingers would have zero issue being compared to Stalin, Pol Pot of Mao Zedong.  I'm sure there would be zero complaints and they'd all say, "it's a valid academic exercise frequently engaged in by social scientists."  Seriously, how's the view from that ivory tower?

Quote:The challenge to dispute that “overly complex” rationale is what “bored” you. Sincerely. No other “major problem” here.

No, your long winded pontifications coupled with your refusal to address points that you know damage your position is what bores me. 

[Dill]

(08-26-2021, 08:39 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I partly agree and disagree.

I do agree that women being oppressed and murdered by the Taliban isn't on Biden or Trump. However, I don't agree that it's not on Biden for abandoning our allies and damaging our credibility.

Biden has said that Afghans didn't want to leave Afghanistan. While it's true that there are Afghans who did not want to leave, using such generalized language is dishonest and appears to be a deliberate attempt by the Biden administration to deflect responsibility. This lie that "Afghans didn't want to leave" has been perpetuated and spread amongst the public and further formed as justification for leaving our allies that actually did want to leave. What Biden and his administration fail to mention however, is the issues that came with trying to actually leave Afghanistan such as VISA processing issues, financial issues, limited flights etc...

The truth is, there are many who wanted to leave, but they did not all have the same opportunity or ability to do so.

A good post, Matt. I will deal with this part at the moment, other parts later.

1. Abandoning our allies--we aren't abandoning ALL of them. E.g., thousands of Afghans have made it out thanks to US and NATO efforts. But it was impossible to accomdate all their at risk relatives. That was always going to be the case if we withdrew. Also, the Germans and Brits are angry because the pullout was decided unilaterally, without consultation. After dragging our NATO allies to Afghanistan, we decided "hey, we've had enough." Since 2017 we've become a very uncertain ally, subject to whims of fickle presidents and public. We may have forgotten the trashed Iran Deal and disastrous Syria pullout, but our Allies through Europe and the Middle East have not.

2. Agree. It was stupid of Biden to say Afghans didn't want to leave. Sure, some didn't, e.g., the Taliban. It was plain that many did.

But I haven't seen evidence this "lie" has been perpetuated and spread anywhere. I have been traveling, often without internet and news access, so maybe you are aware of something I am not. 

I am still examining the process as best I can with intermittent internet and news access. Critical for what we are discussing is what was going on a year ago. What was in place to AFTER the Doha Agreement to prepare for the withdrawal of some 20,000 US affiliated refugees. I am thinking there must have been some resistance to this within the Trump administration (what would Stephen Miller say about thousands of brown Muslims dropped on our doorstep?). Though I don't have reason to believe Pompeo would balk at saving those who risked it all for Americans. Were Trump's people already moving hundreds or thousands to safety?  Think I'll go check on that now.

[Dill]

(08-27-2021, 12:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, much like comparisons to Nazis they serve no valid purpose other than to tie the equated groups together.

Yeah, for the exact same reason.  Duh. 

Yes, I'm sure left wingers would have zero issue being compared to Stalin, Pol Pot of Mao Zedong.  I'm sure there would be zero complaints and they'd all say, "it's a valid academic exercise frequently engaged in by social scientists."  Seriously, how's the view from that ivory tower?

No, your long winded pontifications coupled with your refusal to address points that you know damage your position is what bores me. 

LOL you don't know much about "the Ivory tower." Plenty of leftists include Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong in analysis of authoritarian regimes, though they might sort right wing propganda from their research. Websites like marxism.org have even compiled non-academic bibliographies of such. Leftists that don't are, like you, engaged in something quite other than social science research, the pursuit of knowedge. 

And I tried to address your alleged "points that [I] know damage my positon." Even though that was a side issue.

You said I tried to refute "excesses of Islam."

I asked you to cite at least one of these refutations.

You said that's not possible because I never address them at all.

Then I asked you which is it--do I refute the excesses or Islam or never address them at all?

You told me to "reread" that either/or, as if that revealed some secret you could not directly state, and still without
you having substantiated your "refutation" claim with a single citation.

That's not much different than saying comparisons "refute themselves" or repeating conclusions as reasons. 

You simply keep re-positioning yourself so you don't have to make any substative response to points I have made.

Even when I call your "refusal-to-address-points-that-damage-my-position" bluff the ruse continues. 

And you still have not addressed my response to the terms of debate you set yourself: If an international community of social scientists and historians thinks the value in researching authoritarian regimes is in application of  lessons learned to contemporary democracies, and they don't think comparisons are "always inflammatory" or "tie equated groups," why do YOU think that? Why are YOU right and they are wrong?   

I'll put forward a hypothesis: you don't understand the ethos, methods, and goals of social science. You convert all political discussion to demogoguery, angling and positioning to condemn or to avoid condemnation. That's why terms like "human scum" seem useful to you whereas they don't to social scientists. When confronted with the fact that political scientists and journalists DO use authoritarian comparisons productively, you can only repeat "comparisons to Nazis they serve no valid purpose other than to tie the equated groups together." You actually can't see the value of public discussion of authoritarian tendencies as a means of curbing them. And perhaps you cannot recognize the authoritarian tendencies as authoritarian. If you could, why wouldn't a caller-outer like yourself want to call them out? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-27-2021, 02:52 PM)Dill Wrote: And you still have not addressed my response to the terms of debate you set yourself: If an international community of social scientists and historians thinks the value in researching authoritarian regimes is in application of  lessons learned to contemporary democracies, and they don't think comparisons are "always inflammatory" or "tie equated groups," why do YOU think that? Why are YOU right and they are wrong?   

You're like arguing with a child.  This has been explained to you ad naseum.  I don't give two shits if "academics" see a benefit in comparing groups of Americans to Nazis and Taliban.  It is an intentionally inflammatory comparison and serves to only further polarize and divide people.  News flash, there are an extremely minimal number of Americans for which any kind of legitimate comparison can be made to either Nazi or Taliban beliefs.  Hence such comparisons serve no legitimate purpose.  I don't care how many of your faux intellectual posts you make, the comparisons are harmful and cause far more harm than any "academic" benefit gained by the comparison.


You think they're ok, you also ignore the excesses of Islam because you wrongly equate valid criticism with hate.  In summation:

Dill thinks comparing Americans to Nazis and the Taliban is fine.  I think they are needlessly inflammatory.  Anything else is just window dressing.  It boils down to just that.  Pick your sides, kids.  

[BmorePat87]

(08-26-2021, 08:49 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: It's okay. I understand you take beliefs as absolute facts. You've made that quite clear.

People acting like they know everything tends to lead to this type of dismissive behavior.

Perhaps if you read the argument within its proper context and stopped going back to your obsession of 80% withdrawal you'd understand the argument.

It's no wonder you're so confused when you continually mischaracterize arguments.

Trolling like this is a detriment to the sub-forum and against CoC. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-26-2021, 08:31 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree with the bolded, if we are talking about commitment to war.

On the other hand, he was big on SYMBOLIC violence, like MOAB which was supposed to intimidate the Taliban, the assisination of Suleiman, and shooting down drones in the Gulf--the latter two actions walking us close to the edge of war. 

The Kurds helped the US find and kill Al Baghdadi; Leaving them then to fend for themselves is probably the best predictor of how Trump would have handled the Afghan pull out. Would he "own" bringing 20,000 Muslim collaborators to the US? 

Perhaps he would authorize some random bombing if the Taliban failed to meet some demand, killing more civilians, friend and foe, in a final masculinist gesture. But it's doubtful the Taliban would worry enough about that to alter their behavior. Trump was not going to restart the war, and that was his only possible leverage, not another MOAB. The big win for them was the Doha Agreement with its deadlines. One way or another, big boom or quiet whimper, the US was leaving.  

I don't think Trump was only tough on conservatives. Think of the whistleblowers he fired. 

Nothing to disagree with in this, but I just want to note that I said only conservatives saw him as a tough guy (as in believes the charade), not that he was only tough on them.