Sorry not up on plane terminology, what does that mean? they didn't retract them?
It all just looks so Bizarre, i'm surprised they were even allowed to take out with that many people around them.
Afghanistan
- Thread starter Sherzad
- Start date
It all just looks so Bizarre, i'm surprised they were even allowed to take out with that many people around them.
No, they retracted them, then extended again, so those inside can fall off, then retracted them again.
Press Conference about to start, all seems calm, its in HD too...I dunno why I thought it was going to be like a poor quality river
Very good read, thanks.
Listening to the presser right now. I don't expect anything different than what's been said.
I have to get to work but if anyone cant find a translation he's so far saying the same stuff that's been said from them for past few weeks "right to freedom. We don't have enemies with anyone. We don't want enemies inside or outside" etc. Obviously this presser will be a lot of image softening. Time will tell what happens.
Can you show me where I have said this?
I can simply ask you directly instead of attempting to infer anything. Do you think the Taliban are terrorists? Do you think that American/Western military/occupying forces are terrorists?
Sultan said that the terrorists were not always brown, muslim, etc.
The Taliban terrorize their own country, the US/UK have terrorized other countries. You could say they're both terrorists, yes.
Given that there were 40 nations who participated in Afghanistan, one would hope that no one posting from a western nation would consider their home a terrorist state.
Home isn't Government
Afghanistan is one of the most difficult countries to rule or overpower. History is evidence. Just too many factions of differing persuasions. Afghanistan is also too just important for Pakistan, India, China, Russia and obviously the US will have their ears very close to the ground. There will be major issues confronting Afghanistan going forward. Just too many will not want a peaceful transition unless it meets their aims and objectives.
I just pray Afghanistan is supported by the world in their efforts at nation-building and the Taliban creates an all-inclusive government that will be fair for all its citizens and put away its rivalries aside.
Last edited:
If its a democratic system, then the government is a direct representative of the people by way of their vote.
This is the most extraordinary press conference I have ever seen, complete chaos after every question...
Who would have thought that Taliban would turn into a party of peace? Maybe they have been spending the past year in a yoga retreat to have this kind of turn around.
Who would have thought that Taliban would turn into a party of peace? Maybe they have been spending the past year in a yoga retreat to have this kind of turn around.
All we can do is pray and hope that what they're saying in the press conference right now is true.
Boris Johnson and the Tories do not represent me.
I don't agree with anyone who would claim such a thing but do you think citizens do not have the right to condemn an action of their government? Think it's a bit extreme how you are framing it.
They don't represent me, but they do represent the majority unfortunately, thats how democracy works.
Isn't your foreign affairs outlook more broadly that the weak do what they can and the strong do what they will? That's a highly pragmatic way of viewing things which doesn't square well with a belief that democracies (governments) are always a direct representation of the people or the people's will.
Remote murder by drone strike is terrorism, especialliy when it murders family members at a wedding. That isn't the same thing as calling everyone who voted for a specific government (whose policy "death by remote strike" is) a terrorist. It's a false equivalence.
Systems fecked though in my opinion...they represent themselves and their wealthy friends and big corps....but thats another convo.
Answer my question - Did I say the Taliban were not terrorists which you accused me of in any of my posts?
Answer to your question.
I can categorically say the Taliban, Northern Alliance, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, various warlords, and the governments involved in Afghanistan have caused massive misery, death and destruction on the people of Afghanistan.
technically you could say they best represent the 43.6% who voted for them ... the joys of fptp
Participants?
Do as we say or we'll impose sanctions and we'll not be your friends. I call it bullying.
From press conference "our land will never be used for any other faction to operate out of" (in reference to al qaeeda)
NATO invoked article 5 after 9/11, which wound up sending NATO troops to Afghanistan from 2002 until this week. There was no bullying involved, as the US would've simply gone in alone.
That is corrext. Often times people forget that these kind of groups are not just a bunch of locals who just decided to pick up some black market Vietnam’s ak’47.
It’s wel known for those who have insight in this topic that Al-Qaeda were actually trained by American Intelligences during that Sovjet Union invasion, to protect the gas pipes falling under Soviet hands. The reason I mention this example is that I fully agree that these extremists groups are doing more bad then good for their country and national safety.
However there is also a side of these groups, being financed by intelligence services as a ‘proxy’ to protect specific interest of countries. Russia with Assad to name an example. This protection and financing of proxy groups has also contributed to destabilization and havoc in countries where these groups did not originate from.
geopolitics are very complex, what we see with our naked eyes, in many cases don’t get the neccesary context.
Last edited:
That's a bit of a cop-out, isn't it. Secret services often conduct covert programs that cause huge uproar when they come out, indicating that people obviously did not support them. In some cases, they are even illegal. Those are nonetheless government organizations. Also, governments are voted into power based on a platform, and can deviate from that in the course of their rule. Plus as indicated by others, many people did not vote for the government in power, and a good part of those who did either only support part of the platform, or just disliked the other parties even more.
So while a government represents its jurisdiction's people, it does very clearly not necessarily represents its majority opinion in everything it does.
Absolutely. The world is a dominance hierarchy where the powerful states set the agenda. This is in no way incompatible with democracy since there is no such thing as a world government. If there was, then power would be more evenly distributed.
Can we get assurances that Palestinians women and girls will not have their houses stolen or demolished?
Oh wait wrong press conference
Oh wait wrong press conference
Indeed, democracy or no democracy they all have the same goals..
and that has come with a hefty price ever since. Its reported that the Afghan war cost America a stunning 300 milion dollars a day, up to estimates of 2 trillion.
Hypothetically, the secret services you reference are still a part of a democratically elected government. If they happen to do something illegal, then the public have the ability to take action by electing politicians who can do something about it.
The systems rigged to maintain the staus quo...however in a choice between Taliban and Tories...
Not particularly surprising. When i was in Iraq, the peak burn rate was 10 billion per month. War is very expensive in nearly every way imaginable.
Ha, yes, if only people would prioritize voting on single issues of moral outrage over all the things that actually affect their day-to-day lives. The Dutch government fell over a tax/benefits-related issue that was completely mishandled by them and outraged everybody - and none of the coalition parties suffered any consequences for it in the following elections.
I feel like that was only a small part of that post though. In any case, before taking this too much off-topic, I would say making the difference between a government and a country's people is a sensible idea - under all circumstances, but even more so in a non-proportional democratic system.
That's rich. Question is will they? Survey says...no.
If they choose not to, then ultimately that's on the public. Maybe the issue wasn't as important to the masses as one might have previously thought.
the Iraq example is also a tragic one. To such an extent that even Blair admitted that in hindsight mistakes were made in that war, resulting in hefty consequences such as the vacuum where Isis saw a chance to come to power. McCain in 2018 also said the war was a mistake. These type of countries do not operate on the ‘mechanisms of democracy’. There is a thousand year tradition of hierarchy and culture/traditions, which need carefull understanding before flying over with state of the art f-16’s. War can ‘solve’ a problem, but it can not oversee the problems as a results thereof.
I see that you have mentioned you were in Iraq? I don’t know if it’s appropiate to ask, did you serve there? In your opinion, decades later was this war a succes?
They are just tools to gain legitimacy.