Funnily enough I don't think it's geopolitically defining because of anything the Taliban are likely to do - ultimately they are insignificant globally. It's more what it says about how the US perceives its interests and it's role, and the impact on those countries used to US protection, it's what it says about the post WW2 order, and it's about whether China sees a benefit. It's about how a multipolar world works.
Afghanistan
- Thread starter Sherzad
- Start date
You are naive to think the same people who took control in 1996 are in control in 2021.
Also i'm skeptical, whereas you actually believe everything the media tells you. They just have to say it about a brown face for it to be true.
I don’t need the media to tell me that the taliban don’t value woman’s rights. My friends who fled the country because of the taliban who themselves have ‘brown skin’ by the way could tell you a thing or two about them. You really are something else.
Let's not forget, though , that she was also a part of this.
Last edited:
This is the reason he is optimistic
https://www.thehindu.com/news/inter...an-says-ata-mohammad-noor/article32937556.ece
It's fair to not trust these guys (Taliban) but you should know the 96 organization was totally different than the one right now.
Taliban is sometimes used as a loose term as well. For instance cnn was reporting malala got shot by Taliban who now are in power but that was a different Taliban -- tehrik e Taliban Pakistan (funded by India and Afghanistan )
Just giving you some context. It's hard to tell if we'll have a government like iran or something even more extreme. Hoping for the best
If it's any "consolation" to you much of Afghanistan was already like this especially in rural areas. Truth be told it has been and still is a very tribal based society.
These women rights issues are more ingrained into the locals mindset. A corrupt government regime that won massively fraudulent elections was not going to fix that.
As long as powers are willing to isolate them if they commit attorciites, it should be give more hope
Pakistan doesn't need Afghan territory, Pakistan needs an Afghan government that will deny it's enemies access to Afghan territory. As a Pakistani what happens inside Afghanistan is secondary. Afghanistan has been the launchpad for terrorism against Pakistan for nearly 2 decades, terrorism funded by India. Now with the anti Pakistani Karzai/Ghani regimes and their Indian friends running with their tails between their legs, Pakistan is going to be a safer place. We lost 70,000 lives whilst NATO turned a blind eye and the Indian and Afghan intelligence agencies openly facilitated terrorism against Pakistan. The Taliban have the opportunity to end this, if they don't, we'll be engineering against them too. Ahmed Shah Masoods two brothers were in Islamabad yesterday.
Now of course that doesn't mean I don't feel for the Afghan people. Pakistani's gave the Karzai regime and the Ghani regime every opportunity to work peacefully with us. We allowed trade, we even fenced the border at our own cost, despite several attacks on teams building the border from Afghanistan. However as a Pakistani passport holder, my priority will always be Pakistan over Afghanistan. The Taliban are an entity that provide an opportunity to Pakistan, they are not our dogs. it is 2021 not 1996. If we had a remote control that operated the Taliban we'd have had them target their forces against anti Pakistan elements in Afghanistan.
But the nazis will be nicer this time, eh.
That's true but there's also been measurable improvements in women's rights like higher life expectancy, access to healthcare, % enrolled in school and representation in public office. It will have been disproportionately spread with urban women seeing more of the gains as you say, but they're still measurable improvements that risk being unpicked.
The Taliban is saying things will be different now, let's see, but posters are right to be sceptical that their actions won't match their words based on past evidence, and it's not fair for others to imply that's because people are racist. The onus is on the Taliban to prove they have changed.
I don't know who said it's racist, certainly not me.
Skepticism is understood and I am so myself. My dillema here is the Afghan people should get what they want not what I want or what we want.
It's just difficult for me to get a proper survey of how most afghan feels like and I don't mean these interviews from the five ashraf ghani family members but actual rural afghans.
Anyway I think this was inevitable. The government just had such a bad standing amongst locals no one cared to fight for them. We made a mistake backing them instead of moderate elements within Taliban.
Then what is wrong with what I said? Pakistan sees an opportunity with Taliban. It's why every Pakistani right now is being way too optimistic about Taliban. You can't call other people racists because you are looking out for your own interest. Others have a reason to be sceptic about Taliban.
As far as your ISI terrorism theories are concerned, it's neither trustworthy or the thread to discuss.
What's your solution? Stage another massive invasion of Afghanistan from the airport? Permanently occupy Afghanistan? That was never going to happen, nor should it. The last twenty years proved that much.
Also I understand women's rights being the major issue but no one is talking about something else that concerns me -- music.
I'm trying to understand their stance on it and I hope they don't ban music
I'm trying to understand their stance on it and I hope they don't ban music
Good points.
Iran is pretty extreme in itself though. If that’s the optimistic future of women’s rights then that’s pessimistic in itself from my point of view.
Yes sorry, I realised saying that in response to your post might read like I was suggesting you'd made that comment, apologies. It was referring to the exchange before that (between other posters) implying people were too willing to believe the media's reports about women's and girls' rights being abused so long as the accused has brown skin.
I do agree with you on the rest of your post, and also your one below pointing out that basic joys like listening to music are likely to be taken away from people too. The BBC were reporting a few days ago about a man made to walk barefoot in the sun until he passed out after he was caught listening to music. Unlikely to be verified, but they seem to have heard it from several sources.
The article suggests that the Taliban are an extension of the Pakistani state, it uses the term "mother of the Taliban". This is untrue. The Taliban have recieved support from Multiple neigbhouring countries. The matter of Indian sponsored terrorism from Afghanistan is a matter of record, there is no debate to be had. The Indian NSA is on camera boasting about it, multiple Indian defence analysts including retired military figures confirm it on your own media talk shows.
It is very relevant too. Post 911 Pakistan had burned bridges with the old Taliban, we had betrayed them. Even in the new version, we had their current leader in Prison until Donald Trump negociated his release. We had him in lock up because he wasn't cooperative. The only reason Pakistan got involved with backing the Taliban again was because of the huge wave of Indian sponsored terrorism in Pakistan being launched from Afghanistan. We host 4 million Afghan refugees and have done for nearly 40 years now. These people fueled crime in Pakistan - it's in our best interests to have a stable Afghanistan so we can send people back home.
for what it's worth the brown person remark was not intended as racism, it was intended more as people in the west are very likely to believe anything the media tells them about people who aren't from the same culture as them because the media is so full of shit about other people. I saw a CNN interview earlier on today where the people in the background are chanting Allah Hu Akbar and the CNN reported it as Death to America.
He didn't take Biden down. He took the US administration under Trump down because he was the guy who decided to pull out. And rightly so. And who is this guy to decide who gets to fly to the USA or not now?
Ok, thanks for the explanation. I think in the particular example that was being discussed though it was a bit of an unfair comment as there’s very good reason for people to believe the Taliban will treat women and girl’s poorly and that’s not due to cultural misunderstandings or the media being ‘full of shit’, it’s because of the Taliban’s record in those areas and the anecdotal stories coming out now about how women are being affected in the last few days.
I know they say they’re changing approach now but I won’t believe it until I see it.
You're right but what was the alternative ? A government of mass corruption and a police force high on heroin with hardly and law and order vs forced hijab in public but a functioning state.
As a start I'd take the former and then gradually change for more freedom from that. We need to understand if locals want or believe in a certain way of life imposing our way is just going to cause more rebellion.
Your original reply to him was a link to a newspaper article (the media) and a clip of a Taliban spokesperson on a TV program (the media).
There are legit reasons to believe they won't change and I myself don't know what to believe
But one thing for sure the CNN/BBC coverage at times just doesn't differentiate at all between the nuances of what the Taliban are saying now vs before. They're showing the streets as if there's complete chaos.
I also think they're hardly mentioning the rot in the afghan government along with the corruption that went on.
On the other extreme, there are pro Taliban accounts on Twitter showing them addressing minority leaders for Sikh and Hindu afghans, talking to women doctors assuring them not to fear anything and so on.
Its difficult for me to understand what's actually going on and I reckon the truth is somewhere in between.
We just have to remind ourselves not every big oily beared tribal looking dude is going to have the same opinions and be of the same thought of 20 years ago and I think some feel this way. A friend of mine told me this is basically the ISIS situation again which is an exaggerated comparison.
At the end of the day our concern should be human rights but I doubt countries care for that. Saudi Arabia has been the wests favorite state for years now and we all know about their human rights record.
Nice, simplified historical breakdown of Afghanistan’s conflicts from 1973-2001 (thread):
Yes, I very much agree that we don't openly discuss the corruption and abuses of the Afghan government enough. I watched the Vice documentary last night that others posted and it was a bleak watch. You're also right that not every tribal leader will have the same views and opinions, although of course western standards all are likely to be conservative on social issues, but that's something we just have to accept.
The Saudi Arabia example is one country where we just 'accept' their different approach to human rights and societal values, although I think there is a key different with Afghanistan in that we invaded and started going about nation building before Trump/Biden decided they didn't want to carry on doing that. We therefore have had more scope/responsibility to affect things there compared to other countries with conservative Islamic values. One of the things that has frustrated me about all of the Biden interviews is that he's responded to questions as though he's being asked to consider the case for invasion/meddling now rather than acknowledging the fact it's a process they already started so they already bear some responsibility.
Yeah all fair points.
Maybe a good summary would be we succeeded in dismantling terror camps but pretty much failed in nation building and I think nation building was a bigger task than anticipated and not worth the dollars.
The china model seems to be a smarter way to go about it. See china literally tortures Muslims in xinxiang and then goes about investing in other Muslim countries building infrastructure which makes them trust the Chinese way more.
But then, China has a geographic advantage in doing that. There is just nothing of importance for America in terms of geopolitics in Afghanistan. If they even try to build up an foreign invasion army or anything or the like, America knows as well as taliban they'll get bombed back to zero just like in 2001.
This is not true. 1980 was 41 years ago now so a 35 year old fighter would be 76 right now -- it's obviously not going to be all of the same personal but the ideology of mujahideen and fighting the foreign invaders was implanted since then and has remained.
It's been morphing just like this government will have morphed from the one in 2001 but the birth of it all was in the 80s and it has carried through
Did you read through the thread?
The twitter thread ? I didn't. It's just something I've heard before that the current fighters have nothing to do with 80s mujahideen but I find that thought a stretch
All fair points of course. Maybe I look it at to much from a western point of view. I just wished it wasn’t the one or the other.
Maybe read the thing in entirety before commenting?
I don't know what the solution is. What i have learned though is that we should never surrender to terrorists. But this is exactly what happened right now, isn't it?
American occupation feeds terrorism though. We'll see whether the present Taliban are going to execute revenge attacks against the west or not.
Lot of Afghans have that same sentiment about the USA and its allies , Russia etc. Where does it end.
What does that mean, though, "never surrender to terrorists"? You can't maintain an eternal occupation based on platitudes. Maybe you don't claim to have a solution, but you did ask why the west weren't just sending in more troops to "tell them to feck off". The only way to interpret that is that you want another invasion of Afghanistan. And frankly at this point it doesn't matter who the "bad guys" are in Afghanistan. Unless you want the West to commit to another massive invasion and another few decades of occupation, none of which is going to fix anything in the end anyway, the western troops leaving was the only choice.
It's definitely right to question how they were so surprised at this, and their failure to organize a proper evacuation that involves those Afghans that have worked for them, but more fighting isn't the solution.
Um...no. Not really / not at all.
This is quite a basic and inaccurate view on a very complex, multi-faceted issue.
It's a very long/complex story that likely @2cents or @Raoul could enunciate better than I.
Once the Soviets withdrew in 1989~ the Mujuhadin commanders kept poking, but the Afghan army held on until the USSR collapsed (Absolute proof that an Afghan army COULD have worked in this situation, if it had been done right). When the USSR collapsed in 1992, the 2 main Northern Alliance (or well, commanders from the Northern Militia) Dostum and Massoud moved south past Bagram to the gates of Kabul. They then started negotiating transition. Meanwhile Hekmatyar moved up from the South and invaded, wanting to become the absolute ruler/dictator of Afghanistan. Massoud and Dostum forced his hand, and basically that started years of civil war.
You had many actors, but a few stood out:
Hekmatyar - A southern warlord deeply in love with Bin Laden/Al Quaeda. Extremely repressive of women and modernity. Brutal as feck. Leader of HIG faction. Mainly funded by pakistan, the ISI, and many analysts consider it to actually be/have been an arm of the ISI. By 1994 it had essentially morphed into the Taliban and Al Quaeda. Some contend that around 1994 the ISI were fed up of him and simply switched sides to supporting the Taliban, but a lot of the evidence shows a tacit 'transfer' to the Taliban. Their training camps certainly became Taliban ones without conflict. Hekmatyar faction basically became the Taliban post 94, though he wasn't particularly relevant for a while and fled to Iran. Since 2001 he's been actively supporting both Taliban and Al Quaeda forces. He had no problem trying to sideline/kill other factions, and showed no loyalty to anybody except Bin Laden. He is still alive and trying to be part of the interim government now.
Massoud - a northern warlord and leader of Jamiat-e Islami. The strongest and most respected of the Mujuhadin, hailing from the North. Always hated by Hekmatyar, and especially Bin-Laden, even from the times of fighting the Soviets. He managed to build a complex network of alliances back in the war against the soviets, and despite lack of funding (The USA preferred to fund through Pakistan, who as above supported Hekmatyar) was by far the most successful of the commanders. He also had many foreign people (Mostly muslims) come to the Jihad against the soviets. Massoud was also alarmingly moderate, signing many declarations of women and human rights etc. Post Soviet Invasion he kept up the insurgency until 1992, leadng to him being at the gates of Kabul as above. He was assassinated 2 days before 9/11 by [assassins funded by] Al Quaeda/Taliban.
Dostum - Another northern Alliance commander. Pro soviet regime, switched side and and marched with Massoud to Kabul from the north in 92. He then withdrew after defending from Hekmatyar and basically formed his own little country in Mazar, until the Taliban came knocking. He then fought with Massoud again as part of a Northern Alliance against the Taliban; some shenanigans ensued, and he fled to Turkey. Quite moderate in attitude. All of Mazar was.
Ismail Khan - Another northern Alliance commander, who fought with Massoud against the soviets. From Herat. Captured by the Taliban but escaped in 1999. Quite a hardliner and definitely more 'warlord' than anything else. Respected but also feared.
Taliban - Basically born from HIG, funded nurtured by the ISI. The new post Hekmatyar solution for Pakistan and other Arab agencies who wanted hardliners in control. Designed to defeat and crush those like Massoud. Impossible to separate them from AQ, as it was essentially an autonomous wing of the Taliban.
.... So this Civil war raged until 1996, when the Taliban essentially took control of all of Afghanistan, with the exception of the North and Northeast which stayed under the command of Dostum and Massoud. Massoud then created the UF/United front/Northern alliance against them in resistance, which resisted against the Taliban (funded by Iran/India/etc etc. India became very important for funding later) - By 1999 Massoud and Abdul Haq looked further afield, bringing together a bigger and bigger cross factional alliance ready to stand against the Taliban. They reached out to everybody, and everybody was aware of them, from Bush to Jerusalem to Berlin. Anti Taliban sentiment within Afghanistan is reaching an all time high, even in the Pashtun tribes. The situation just needs sparked.
In early 2001 he presented to the European Parliament this alliance, whilst warning Bush about an impending major attack that year against them. He says that Taliban/Al Quaeda in Afghanistan present a bad perception of Islam. He posits that without the Pakistani support and with humanitarian aid, he can take back Afghanistan. The US were too busy appeasing Pakistan, and funding the Taliban through them.
Anyway, 2 days before 9/11 he is assassinated by Bin Laden/Taliban funded assets from Europe. Then the invasion and the situation we have now.
ps. His son and some CIA assets/ Afghani Special Forces/Other assets have kicked off a new 'United Front' against the Taliban as of 3 days ago. Yet to see if it can be at all effective. The son is not the father.
Last edited:
Well, sending troops doesn't necessarily include fighting. The presence alone should be enough because i doubt that the taliban would like a war with the whole west.
They just had one, though? They won.
It's like the Vietnam War. Some Americans will try to convince you that the US didn't lose the Vietnam War, because they could have won if they really wanted to. But they didn't, and they didn't. It doesn't matter what the west is infinitely more powerful than Taliban, when the end result is that the Taliban are in control of Afghanistan.