Why Are the Taliban Better then Americans

[Comrade B]

Any sources? Afghanistan's women are in a far better condition then pre-2001.

Cuba's people are far better off than they were in pre-Castro years, however we don't kid ourselves that Cuba is a true communist society.
Afghanistan's women are better off than they were before, but they are still not living near equally to men.

[danyboy27]

Any sources? Afghanistan's women are in a far better condition then pre-2001.

not to burst your bubble but i think its something verry subjective.

of course people gained a certain freedom they didnt had before, but on another hand they can get blown up by a suicide attack or a drone so....

hey, i dont take side, but personally, i think the cards on both side have been awfully played so far, its a catch-22 situation for both side right now. the american will have again spend billion of dollars on a territory that dosnt have any value, inflicting an economical and cultural shock to the afghan people, and the taliban have spend a ton of good ressources and experimented people to fight a war against an ennemy they cant militarly overrun.`

its a loose loose situation, and its kinda sad.

[Hiero]

The American's deserve the Taliban, but the Pashtun people don't.

[Comrade B]

The American's deserve the Taliban, but the Pashtun people don't.

George Bush and Barrack Obama aren't of the Americans suffering because of the Taliban. My friends B.K. J.G. U.R. and many others are going to be in Afghanistan in a few weeks/months/are already there. They don't deserve to suffer because of their leaders' aggressive behavior.

[Hiero]

not to burst your bubble but i think its something verry subjective.

of course people gained a certain freedom they didnt had before, but on another hand they can get blown up by a suicide attack or a drone so....

Well it is your bubble that is going to be burst.

If you keep your eye out there is a consistent stream of aritcles as such:
Row over Afghan wife-starving law

The stupid logic that if the occupying army is the army of a liberal democracy then the occupation will be a liberal democracy has provern to be false time and time again.

So not only does the colaborating government enforce theocratic and patriachal laws, there are large areas where the Taliban have soverign power. Not only this, I imagine in many villages life went on in the US occupied era just the same as it did in the Taliban era, just the same as it did in the PDPA era.

It is just a fantasy that the occupied country would conform to a social life similar to the country of the occupiers. This is not USA's good war.

[Hiero]

George Bush and Barrack Obama aren't of the Americans suffering because of the Taliban. My friends B.K. J.G. U.R. and many others are going to be in Afghanistan in a few weeks/months/are already there. They don't deserve to suffer because of their leaders' aggressive behavior.

So?

I mean every army or irregular politica/militia is made up of pretty average people. This support the troops but not the war is pointless. We can empathise with nearly every soldier to some level, they are family men who think they are doing the right thing, they want to remove this or that army that raped their woman, they doing it because they are poor etc. This includes men in the Taliban.

In realistic political analysis, we can only think of an amry as the armed wing of a certian political class, the US army is the armed wing of people like George Bush, Barack Obama and all the bourgioesie, Bill Gates etc.

[danyboy27]

Well it is your bubble that is going to be burst.

If you keep your eye out there is a consistent stream of aritcles as such:
Row over Afghan wife-starving law

The stupid logic that if the occupying army is the army of a liberal democracy then the occupation will be a liberal democracy has provern to be false time and time again.

So not only does the colaborating government enforce theocratic and patriachal laws, there are large areas where the Taliban have soverign power. Not only this, I imagine in many villages life went on in the US occupied era just the same as it did in the Taliban era, just the same as it did in the PDPA era.

It is just a fantasy that the occupied country would conform to a social life similar to the country of the occupiers. This is not USA's good war.

you got 1 hour to find the sentence where i actually mentionned that beccause the american are there, the afghan people will embrace the same values and cultures. where did i said that the afghan governement where in power all over the place? where did i said that the afghan culture will be a copycat of the american one just beccause some us troops are there? the islamic laws are still enforced by the afghan government, and i am well aware of that


there is no bubble to burst, i am well aware of all those things, but i guess you think i am an evil capitalist and for that, i must be a moron or something.

[Hiero]

you got 1 hour to find the sentence where i actually mentionned that beccause the american are there, the afghan people will embrace the same values and cultures. where did i said that the afghan governement where in power all over the place? where did i said that the afghan culture will be a copycat of the american one just beccause some us troops are there? the islamic laws are still enforced by the afghan government, and i am well aware of that

of course people gained a certain freedom they didnt had before, but on another hand they can get blown up by a suicide attack or a drone so....

You didn't say it excactly, but whenever someone explains something you never explain the thing in the excact same words.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Why do so many individuals on the internet confuse 'then' with 'than'?

[9]

Why do so many individuals on the internet confuse 'then' with 'than'?

I can see how it would be an easy mistake to make. Particularly when the only difference in spelling is the vowel and the "a" and "e" keys are nearly touching.
Plus, I think a lot of people aren't aware of the difference. Than, what do I know?

[danyboy27]

You didn't say it excactly, but whenever someone explains something you never explain the thing in the excact same words.

i didnt used the same words beccause that not what i meant at all.

i suspect your judgement is altered beccause i am an OI and that you put me the same bag than the other.

basicly, its a form of discrimination.

[Richard Nixon]

Cuba's people are far better off than they were in pre-Castro years, however we don't kid ourselves that Cuba is a true communist society.
Afghanistan's women are better off than they were before, but they are still not living near equally to men.

But you think Cuba is better off with the Revolution, same thing here.

[Plagueround]

A. The US wasn't planning to invade Afghanistan in advance. Perhaps you confused it with Iraq?

Several sources disagree with you on this one:

NBC News reported in May 2002 that a formal National Security Presidential Directive submitted two days before September 11, 2001 had outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, including outlines to persuade Afghanistan’s Taliban government to turn al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden over to the United States, with provisions to use military force if it refused.


According to a 2004 report by the bipartisan commission of inquiry into 9/11, on the very next day, one day before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. At that September 10 meeting of the Bush administration's top national security officials it was agreed that the Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over Bin Laden. Failing that, covert military aid would be channelled by the U.S. to anti-Taliban groups. And, if both those options failed, "the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action."


However, an article published in March 2001 by Jane's, a media outlet serving the military and intelligence communities, suggests that the United States had already been planning and taking just such action against the Taliban six months before September 11, 2001. According to Jane's, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistics support as part of concerted action with India, Iran, and Russia against Afghanistan's Taliban regime, with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan being used as bases.


The BBC News reported that, according to a Pakistani diplomat, Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, had been told by senior American officials in mid-July 2001 that military action against Afghanistan would proceed by the middle of October at the latest. The message was conveyed during a meeting on Afghanistan between senior U.S., Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani diplomats. The meeting was the third in a series of meetings on Afghanistan, with the previous meeting having been held in March 2001. During the July 2001 meeting, Mr. Naik was told that Washington would launch its military operation from bases in Tajikistan - where American advisers were already in place - and that the wider objective was to topple the Taliban regime and install another government in place.


An article in The Guardian on September 26, 2001, also adds evidence that there were already signs in the first half of 2001 that Washington was moving to threaten Afghanistan militarily from the north, via Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. A U.S. Department of Defense official, Dr. Jeffrey Starr, visited Tajikistan in January 2001 and U.S. General Tommy Franks visited the country in May 2001, conveying a message from the Bush administration that the US considered Tajikistan "a strategically significant country".
U.S. Army Rangers were training special troops inside Kyrgyzstan, and there were unconfirmed reports that Tajik and Uzbek special troops were training in Alaska and Montana. Reliable western military sources say a U.S. contingency plan existed on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north, with U.S. military advisors already in place in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

[Richard Nixon]

You still haven't provided any links.

And if it's true it would simply mean that Bush recoginzed that Bin Laden had to be taken out even without 9-11.

[Robert]

Why do so many individuals on the internet confuse 'then' with 'than'?

Oooooooh! Can we have a pet peeve thread? (I wonder if there is another term for "pet peeve" in merry ole England [?])

[Plagueround]

You still haven't provided any links.

If there is one thing I hate, it's doing people's research for them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004...ptember11.usa2

http://www.janes.com/security/intern...0315_1_n.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004...ptember11.usa2

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...264545,00.html

You can also find articles about the Taliban agreeing to hand Bin Laden over if the U.S. could furnish proof, or try him under their courts, or even agree to hand him over if the U.S. would cease bombing.

And if it's true it would simply mean that Bush recoginzed that Bin Laden had to be taken out even without 9-11.

Clinton actually. I'm not denying that Osama was and is dangerous. Of course, I'd imagine they now that because they funded and trained him.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I'm against violence but as a pacifist even I cant see an alternative. The best bet is to leave american troops there and eliminate the Taliban.

[Comrade B]

But you think Cuba is better off with the Revolution, same thing here.

I guess my example doesn't work too well.

Afghanistan is still shit, the US has done the minimum to improve the situation. They have done what it takes to appear like they actually give a shit, then they left everything to the people with power in the country... who got power during the Taliban or from US bribes... meaning they are either puppets for the US and its imperialist plans, or that they owe their loyalty to the traditions of the Taliban.

[Plagueround]

I'm against violence but as a pacifist even I cant see an alternative. The best bet is to leave american troops there and eliminate the Taliban.

Real pacifists don't pick a side like that because they see violence from either side as inexcusable.

As a non-pacifist, I still don't think that's a very viable option. For those that haven't been paying attention, it is the continued meddling by the first (and previously second) world in the affairs of these nations that has given birth to extremists. You will not be able to contain the problems of these nations by killing them, you will be making them worse. By continuing to interfere, you are breeding more of them.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Real pacifists don't pick a side like that because they see violence from either side as inexcusable.

As a non-pacifist, I still don't think that's a very viable option. For those that haven't been paying attention, it is the continued meddling by the first (and previously second) world in the affairs of these nations that has given birth to extremists. You will not be able to contain the problems of these nations by killing them, you will be making them worse. By continuing to interfere, you are breeding more of them.

I try to avoid taking sides when I can but the women in Afghanistan demand attention and I cant bring myself to not take a side when there's a chance a stopping their abusers.

Can't believe I'm saying it but yeah, I'd kill taliban fighters