Afghanistan

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(08-25-2021, 08:16 PM)Nately120 Wrote: What do we need to do to hold Biden accountable in your mind?

Why the hell would I want to hear the same old tired excuses again everything’s been discussed here before.

[*Nately120*]

(08-26-2021, 08:20 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Why the hell would I want to hear the same old tired excuses again everything’s been discussed here before.

Do you want people to admit they should have voted for Trump?  I just don't know what you want to see, because I'm not seeing some sort of irrational rush to defend Biden on this one. 

[Dill]

(08-26-2021, 01:00 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill, you're so myopic on the topic of Islam that your refutations of its excesses are comical, bordering on farcical.  That you can equate stating that Isis fighters are "human scum", which they are, to criticism of Islam as a whole shows you're not adult enough to even partake in this discussion.  But, again, I will thank you for proving my points for me.

LOL so it’s the people who call other humans “scum” just “because they are,” who are “adult enough" to partake in this discussion?  Why don't we hear more of that in responsible political commentary and scholarship then?  Are the demogogues the real adults?

Can you identify one statement in of my posts which purports to “refute the excesses of Islam”?  The points I "proved" for you don't seem to actually be in my posts. 

You can’t refer to the excesses OF ISLAM in one breath, and then in the next deny you refer to "Islam as a whole." 

Why were you asking for a list of Muslim-majority countries who don't oppress women if "criticism of Islam as a whole" was not your goal? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2021, 12:09 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL so it’s the people who call other humans “scum” just “because they are,” who are “adult enough" to partake in this discussion?  Why don't we hear more of that in responsible political commentary and scholarship then?  Are the demogogues the real adults?

Yeah, I'm quite comfortable calling people who engage in wanton acts of murder, torture and rapine human scum.  You, for some reason, are not.  But you're quite comfortable comparing Americans to Nazis and the Taliban.  An rather illogical position, but that's you.

Quote:Can you identify one statement in of my posts which purports to “refute the excesses of Islam”?  The points I "proved" for you don't seem to actually be in my posts. 

Oh, that's not possible, because you never address it at all.  Well, except to object to Isis scum being called scum.

Quote:You can’t refer to the excesses OF ISLAM in one breath, and then in the next deny you refer to "Islam as a whole." 

I most certainly can, just as I mention the excesses of Christianity during the slave trade and how it couldn't have existed if more Christians acted, well, like Christians, and demanded it stop.  When your religion is being used to justify horrific acts then it is the responsibility of the adherents of that religion to stand up and say, no!  There are certainly Muslims that do this, but clearly in nothing close to the numbers needed to effect actual change.  Or, you know, things would actually change.

Quote:Why were you asking for a list of Muslim-majority countries who don't oppress women if "criticism of Islam as a whole" was not your goal? 

I would think that's rather self evident.  You take issue with my criticism of Islam and claim I am incorrect in my characterizations of how the religion is currently used, en masse, to denigrate and oppress women and homosexuals, to name only two categories.  I then asked you to prove me wrong by listing the majority Muslim countries in which that is not the case.  You provided two examples, both in Europe.  I then asked you to provide a list of Muslim majority countries in which women and homosexuals are oppressed and denigrated as a matter of routine.  You balked at this, and we all know why.  It's this type of intellectual cowardice that makes all your refutations on this subject patently absurd and imminently laughable.  You know you've been painted into a corner, hence your desperate attempts to consistently mischaracterize my position as bigoted towards all Muslims.  It's not working, it's not going to work, and your flailing attempts to deny it have passed the point of embarrassing.  

[SladeX]

(08-26-2021, 12:11 AM)Dill Wrote: Bosnia-Herzogovina?

Someone really interested in "opporession" of women and LGBTQ minorities will go beyond judging non-lberal societies for not being liberal, and will not object to examining why non-liberal elements persist in our own.

What "questions" am I supposedly avoiding?  Islam is used to justify "oppression and violence in the case of drawing Muhammed, in the exact same way Christianity was used to justify the slave trade"? Wow. Garbled. What exactly are the terms of comparison there? 

The issue between us is not whether there are some Muslim groups who practice religiously inflected violence/oppression. 

The issue is whether this should be used to characterize all or most practicing Muslims in the world, while you block social-scientific analogies between the US groups and authoritarian regimes like the Taliban or Nazis on the claim such comparison is "inherently inflammatory."  And at at time when general lack of knowledge about such societies is hindering public assessment of "what went wrong" in Afghanistan.

If you believe, as I do not, that "comparisons of any kind to such extreme groups always, I repeat always, has the effect of making the groups analogous, of linking them together," then what is the goal of such deliberate linkage between "radical" and "moderate" groups in YOUR arguments? 

"Valid criticism" doesn't address its targets as "human scum" and always has some goal beyond naming and blaming. So yes, your criticisms of "radical Islam" are indeed "viscious attack." They show no effort to go beyond selective media representations of Islam to understand the social, economic and historical determinants of current Islamic politics, let alone the differing demographic and religious composition of Muslim majority countries, comically assumed to be constant in their "oppression" of various groups, an oppression grounded in religion.

Do you see any cause for concern that the left wing has apparently gotten in bed with the intelligence community, and the corporations that are amassing data on each citizen on an unprecedented scale? I see people's fear of a populist style leader, but I feel that there is just as much cause for concern, if not more, residing on the other side of the aisle!

[Belsnickel]

(08-26-2021, 01:27 PM)SladeX Wrote: Do you see any cause for concern that the left wing has apparently gotten in bed with the intelligence community, and the corporations that are amassing data on each citizen on an unprecedented scale? I see people's fear of a populist style leader, but I feel that there is just as much cause for concern, if not more, residing on the other side of the aisle!

In what way are they "in bed" with the intelligence community? And both major parties are in tight with those corporations. Don't let the show some put on fool you.

[*Nately120*]

(08-26-2021, 02:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In what way are they "in bed" with the intelligence community? And both major parties are in tight with those corporations. Don't let the show some put on fool you.

Info on people = money


So until we find a political party that doesn't care about the money and power information brings, we're out of luck.

[jj22]

R.I.P to the service people who had the opportunity to leave but stayed behind to try to evacuate as many Afgans as they could. Hopefully Biden doesn't respond like Trump did the last time our service people were murdered by terrorist (Trump and his supporters attacked the Widows).

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-soldiers-niger-20171018-story.html

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2021, 03:08 PM)jj22 Wrote: R.I.P to the service people who had the opportunity to leave but stayed behind to try to evacuate as many Afgans as they could. Hopefully Biden doesn't respond like Trump did the last time our service people were murdered by terrorist (Trump and his supporters attacked the Widows).

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-soldiers-niger-20171018-story.html

Dear god, Trump is clearly living in your head rent free.

On an actual related note, it appears the Biden administration gave the Taliban a list of Afghans who assisted US forces so they can be granted entrance to the airport.  Only problem with that is they basically gave the Taliban a list of who they need to kill.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/26/us-officials-provided-taliban-with-names-of-americans-afghan-allies-to-evacuate-506957



“Basically, they just put all those Afghans on a kill list,” said one defense official, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic. “It’s just appalling and shocking and makes you feel unclean.”

[BigPapaKain]

(08-26-2021, 04:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dear god, Trump is clearly living in your head rent free.

On an actual related note, it appears the Biden administration gave the Taliban a list of Afghans who assisted US forces so they can be granted entrance to the airport.  Only problem with that is they basically gave the Taliban a list of who they need to kill.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/26/us-officials-provided-taliban-with-names-of-americans-afghan-allies-to-evacuate-506957



“Basically, they just put all those Afghans on a kill list,” said one defense official, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic. “It’s just appalling and shocking and makes you feel unclean.”

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).

[Au165]

(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).

The issue was they couldn't enter a foreign country that doesn't want them there without risking escalation of conflict. Additionally, we are talking thousands and you aren't running ops to get thousands of people out without being noticed. Once they gave away the area around the airport they were screwed. They figured out they F'd up and stopped giving them a full list but rather just those cleared to depart rather than those who hadn't, and may not ever, be approved to enter our country. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(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).

Well, the ideal solution would have been not turning over security for the airport to the Taliban, then no list would have been needed at all.  At least no list that would be disseminated outside of US forces.    But that's all water under the fridge.

[Goalpost]

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.

[BmorePat87]

(08-26-2021, 07:14 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Let me make clear here that I'm not trying to say what would have actually happened had Trump been in office.

What I'm pointing out is what Trump's plan/deal was because it's being claimed that what Biden did was "Trump's plan". Whether Trump actually would have followed through with his plan for complete withdrawal isn't important to the point I'm trying to make here.

Biden claimed he was tied to Trump's deal did he not?

Trump's deal noted that complete withdrawal would happen when obligations of the deal were met by the Taliban. We never got to the point of complete withdrawal with Trump, so we don't know whether or not Trump would have kept a remaining troop presence there due to the Taliban not following the deal.

What is certain here however, is that Biden is in the moment of complete withdrawal and did not adhere to the deal Trump set in place, regardless of whether or not Trump would have followed it himself. Yet, Biden claims he was "binded by the agreement"

So then why is he completing the withdrawal when the deal is clearly not being met?  Biden's not even following the deal to which he said he was bound.

Saying this was "Trump's plan" is a complete deflection to defend a complete withdrawal that never should have happened the way that it did under Biden, regardless of what Trump would have actually done once May 1st got here and he was still President.

So basically your argument is that it's not actually Trump's plan because by Biden is completing what Trump did, and what Trump did was not in his plan.

Also, you're still absolutely wrong when you continue to claim that we don't know what Trump would have done with that final 20% for reasons that I have repeated a half dozen times, including in the post you're quoting. There's no point in me repeating myself.

[Dill]

(08-26-2021, 01:27 PM)SladeX Wrote: Do you see any cause for concern that the left wing has apparently gotten in bed with the intelligence community, and the corporations that are amassing data on each citizen on an unprecedented scale? I see people's fear of a populist style leader, but I feel that there is just as much cause for concern, if not more, residing on the other side of the aisle!

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "the left wing." The people I mean by that term are definitely NOT in bed with the intelligence community and corporations.

"This side of the aisle" will certainly not protect your data if it captures the White House again.  

But I share your worries about "big data." The technology has outstripped our legal protections, and people will exploit the grey areas and lobby to keep them grey, usually by appealing to the 1st Amendment and free market principles. 

If we want accountability regarding this issue, we need to check the record of each party--how has it responded to these technological challenges over the last 30 years or so? Then we can direct support and pressure and protest where it will do the most good.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-26-2021, 05:47 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So basically your argument is that it's not actually Trump's plan because by Biden is completing what Trump did, and what Trump did was not in his plan.

Also, you're still absolutely wrong when you continue to claim that we don't know what Trump would have done with that final 20% for reasons that I have repeated a half dozen times, including in the post you're quoting. There's no point in me repeating myself.

No, my argument is that it's not Trumps plan because it literally isn't.

And you can act like you know exactly what Trump would have done, but you actually don't. Until Trump actually pulled troops out you don't know what he would have done. It's speculation.

Removing 80% of troops is not proof that a complete withdrawal wouls have actually happened.

Regardless, arguing whether Trump would have done a full withdrawal seems to be beside the other point here. That point being, we don't know what a full withdrawal would have looked like under Trump even if it really did happen.

Let's say you're right.

Let's say Trump actually would have done a complete withdrawal. To that I say, so what?

We're dancing around what the real issue is here.

The real issue here isn't that we initiated the final withdrawal. The real issue is how it was executed. So what if Trump did remain President and initiated the withdrawal in May. You still don't know what would have actually happened with the execution of it.

The problem with Bidens withdrawal isn't that he withdrew. Its how he planned and executed it. Trump didn't plan or execute what Biden did. But somehow you've convinced yourself that whats currently happening in Afghanistan was "Trump's plan".

[Dill]

(08-26-2021, 07:14 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Let me make clear here that I'm not trying to say what would have actually happened had Trump been in office.

What I'm pointing out is what Trump's plan/deal was because it's being claimed that what Biden did was "Trump's plan". Whether Trump actually would have followed through with his plan for complete withdrawal isn't important to the point I'm trying to make here.

Biden claimed he was tied to Trump's deal did he not?

Trump's deal noted that complete withdrawal would happen when obligations of the deal were met by the Taliban. We never got to the point of complete withdrawal with Trump, so we don't know whether or not Trump would have kept a remaining troop presence there due to the Taliban not following the deal.

What is certain here however, is that Biden is in the moment of complete withdrawal and did not adhere to the deal Trump set in place, regardless of whether or not Trump would have followed it himself. Yet, Biden claims he was "binded by the agreement"

So then why is he completing the withdrawal when the deal is clearly not being met?  Biden's not even following the deal to which he said he was bound.

Saying this was "Trump's plan" is a complete deflection to defend a complete withdrawal that never should have happened the way that it did under Biden, regardless of what Trump would have actually done once May 1st got here and he was still President.

I'll agree with you that Biden has made his own mistakes here. He has diverted from some details of Trump's plan in important respects--e.g., the May 1st pullout. Would have been a BIGGER disaster had he adhered to that. He could have chosen NOT to make a full withdrawal. But did embrace the decision to withdraw, with apparent priority on US military personnel before Afghan supporters.

But preliminary to assigning/arguing blame, I suggest people separate the Afghanistan disaster into three parts for analytic purposes:

1. Separate out the negatives which had to result from any total withdrawal, whether by Trump or Biden. Everyday on the news I hear people clamoring about how we have "betrayed our NATO/Afghan/regional allies" with the unilateral withdrawal, and how our international "credibility" has been diminished, and how women are going to be oppressed and murdered, and how families of interpreters are going to be left behind and killed, and how the US will now have no bases in the region in case it needs to return, and Al Qaeda may be able to reconstitute itself, etc. That's not on Biden or Trump so much as our "sovereign" (and fickle) American people who respond to politicians promising full withdrawal. NEVER FORGET--for at least 20 years!!

2. Take a closer look at the Doha Agreement and its effects on the Islamic State of A-stan. It will probably take a year to get the full story on this, but that agreement, more than anything else, created the frame of reference in which Biden had to operate. It reduced military before civilian/contractor components with its accelerated military withdrawals, and most importantly, motivated provincial governors and former warlords in the north to begin their own negotiations with the Taliban, paralyzing central control of both governnment and military earlier this month when they, acting independently of one another, ordered their forces to stand down. It is not clear whether our intel forsaw this adequately or not. It is clear that those actions, more than any other, dictated the rapid fall of the government and disbandment of the military, which accelerated the withdrawal to its present chaos.

3. Review Biden's decisions from mid-July to the present separately from 1 and 2. That's where we'll locate the critical accountability, if you are one of those who agrees "20 years is long enough."*  The decision to return Baghram to the ISA, for example, was justified as a consequence of reduced troop numbers. The big political metric we keep hearing in the news is number of troops left. Did that skew Biden from his duty to protect civilians and pull out translators and others who supported us? We left signifcant military equipment to the ISA--no plan for removing it as the gov. fell? As far as keeping Trump's "conditions" for leaving--that was already not possible by the time Biden took office, not without re-igniting the war. 

This is not a full list of suggestions. My point is just the we ought to be assessing Biden and Trump in this fashion, which is more likely to produce an accurate account of what went wrong at what stage of the process.

*I am not one of those, so I think the whole mess falls back on the decision to totally withdraw. All who support that are "accountable."

[BmorePat87]

(08-26-2021, 06:28 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: No, my argument is that it's not Trumps plan because it literally isn't.

And you can act like you know exactly what Trump would have done, but you actually don't. Until Trump actually pulled troops out you don't know what he would have done. It's speculation.

Removing 80% of troops is not proof that a complete withdrawal wouls have actually happened.

Regardless, arguing whether Trump would have done a full withdrawal seems to be beside the other point here. That point being, we don't know what a full withdrawal would have looked like under Trump even if it really did happen.

Let's say you're right.

Let's say Trump actually would have done a complete withdrawal. To that I say, so what?

We're dancing around what the real issue is here.

The real issue here isn't that we initiated the final withdrawal. The real issue is how it was executed. So what if Trump did remain President and initiated the withdrawal in May. You still don't know what would have actually happened with the execution of it.

The problem with Bidens withdrawal isn't that he withdrew. Its how he planned and executed it. Trump didn't plan or execute what Biden did. But somehow you've convinced yourself that whats currently happening in Afghanistan was "Trump's plan".

Trump calling for the withdrawal to happen in May without conditions being met isn't proof that Trump would have withdrawn troops in May without conditions being met.

lol

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-26-2021, 06:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Trump calling for the withdrawal to happen in May without conditions being met isn't proof that Trump would have withdrawn troops in May without conditions being met.

lol

That's not my argument.

My argument is Trump hypothetically completing a full withdrawal isn't proof it would have been a disaster.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2021, 06:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Trump calling for the withdrawal to happen in May without conditions being met isn't proof that Trump would have withdrawn troops in May without conditions being met.

lol

With respect, you're not really addressing his central point.  He's saying that a withdrawal under Trump may have gone much smoother than the current shit show.  It may have gone worse.  His point is we don't know.  I personally think, as stated earlier in the thread, that a withdrawal under Trump would not have precipitated the current disaster, if for no other reason that Trump is mercurial and prone to overreaction.  I think it's likely the Taliban would have waited for US forces, and citizens, to leave entirely before rapidly taking over the country.  They may not fear Trump, although I doubt that's the case, but they sure as hell don't fear Biden.  

But, again, we don't know and that's Matt's entire point.  What we do know is that Biden completely screwed the pooch on this, no two ways about it.  It's honestly hard to imagine a realistic scenario in which things went worse.