Just saw this post; 2 months after invasion, Rumsfeld did not know which languages were spoken in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan
- Thread starter Sherzad
- Start date
Rory Stewart’s two-part documentary on Afghanistan and the Great Game:
Isn't this very old or my memory is playing tricks on me? Remember watching this during my BSc close to 10 years ago.
From 2012.
Thoughts on this video?
That's a death sentence.
What did you think about the video?
Horrible...
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
When the US leaves and the taliban start getting more control, a parent would be crazy to send their daughters to school.
Last edited:
It boggles the mind that any human is capable of thinking this is the right thing to do.
Of course that's exactly what they want; uneducated women.
I fear they're gonna get it.
The ultimate, acute delusion of a religion is causing this insanity, all because a segment of it doesn’t want to allow females to gain an education.
Absolutely. The Americans and the British destroyed three countries in the Islamic World by getting rid of secular dictators and brought in religious fanatical dictators. It is insanity as you say.
Saddam, Gaddafi and Al Assad maybe?
Thought of Saddam & Gaddafi, couldn’t think of the other. But none of these men were directly replaced by ‘religious fanatical dictators.’ Al Assad is still kicking around as well.
This has no bearing on Afghanistan, though. These atrocities have been occurring there for
decades. I cannot think of a secular dictator in that country that was outed by either America or Britain in modern times.
Well Islamic terrorist groups are or have been thriving in all those places. And worse perhaps than dictators, it's caused widespread civil war.
No doubt Islamic terrorist groups have been thriving in all three countries due in large part to power vacuums / political machinations in those countries.
But none of them are running any of those countries.
Well no but IS had carved out a big chunk of all of them at one point.
You keep repeating this version of Afghan history that ignores the many internal factors, ignores the Soviet role, and reduces the collapse of the country to one factor, the actions of Western powers. It's still as inaccurate as two years ago or one year ago.
You're right there, I think Afghan girls and women have nothing to look forward to.
But in the recent past these blatant attacks on civilians have usually been the deed of Afghan IS, who are in opposition to the Taliban and their push into mainstream politics. Taliban terrorism on the other hand has mainly been concentrated on government targets and Western forces, afaik. (Not talking in absolutes here, as my grasp of the chaotic situation is limited, but I think that's the basic constellation.) So my guess for this massacre would be Afghan IS.
Although the lines are blurred, as much of Afghan Islamic State are simply ex-Taliban who reject any political compromise. An article that tries to outline the relationship between Afghan IS and the Taliban:
https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com...taliban-s-tactics-in-peace-talks-look-to-isis
Last edited:
This is the aviation expert who decries airplane cockpits being locked during flight.
It’s understandable how someone like this could be so incorrect about something else.
The Soviets were right. The US got rid of them by arming the mujahideen who became Al Queda. Before that Afghanistan had no Fundamentalists. The same with Saddam and Qadaafi.
ICAO is already discussing how to keep doors or rather how crew can unlock doors from outside in an emergency.
Just study a bit of the middle East or go and live there or visit there before making comments.
Afghanistan is not in the Middle East. And you are wrong once again (but this has been explained to you before).
So, the Soviets were the ‘secular dictators’ to whom you were referring?
Righto.
Just found a couple of RAND Corporation studies discussing Afghan fundamentalism in the 1960s, but I guess their erudition on the matter is tempered by their not actually living in country?
Here's an article about how Saddam tapped into the fundamentalism during the interwar period (it is British, mind...):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/1999/dec/19/iraq.jasonburke
I’m just going to go out on a limb & guess there might have been a fundamentalist or two in Libya during Qaddafi’s reign as well. Call me crazy...
Last edited:
What a mess.
20 years wasted and back to square one again within a couple of months.
20 years wasted and back to square one again within a couple of months.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-57933979
empty territory, mostly.
Freedom, hearts and minds, the good guys.
Clueless
Clueless
Going in was inevitable, as was leaving one day.
There already is a thread on Afghanistan.
USSR, USA, doesn't matter, Taliban in 4.
I saw an interesting video on Afghanistan the other day. The country's geography makes it easy to invade but impossible to hold. The Brits have failed, the Russians have failed and now the US have failed. I doubt any other foreign power will try to hold it again. At least not for a very long time.
Where?
Afghanistan? It's a country in the middle east.
America wanted revenge after 9/11. Attacking Afghanistan to kill a few thousand muslims was always going to be necessary.
It was irrelevant that it made global terrorism worse and ruined the country even further than it had been previously.
It was irrelevant that it made global terrorism worse and ruined the country even further than it had been previously.
You have to wonder if things had looked different without the Iraq war, which suddenly removed all focus from Afghanistan.
Or maybe they wanted revenge against the terrorist organisation, and their Afghan based facilitators, who had destroyed the twin towers?
No it's not. It's in Central Asia.