Search:

This felt appropriate for this thread :weird:
[url]https://youtu.be/cMyKGNy3CI4[/url]

I mean.. he's not [I]wrong[/I]..
But like.. that feels like a [I]optimistic[/I] aftermath scenario..

This felt appropriate for this thread
https://youtu.be/cMyKGNy3CI4

I mean.. he's not wrong..
But like.. that feels like a optimistic aftermath scenario..

20-25 year olds, so young. :/

20-25 year olds, so young. :/

[QUOTE=Helz;946243]They have been killing themselves for thousands of years. The biggest thing I see as changed is that now small warlords have giant tanks and cannons they can do it with.
[/QUOTE] Maybe so, but inside a Mosque? I'm not a Muslim but even I think suicide bombing inside a Mosque is just insane.



[QUOTE=Helz;946243]The leadership on how withdraw happened was impressively incompetent. Hopefully it will stand as an example of exactly why you should listen to the advice of professionals in your field when you have no clue what you are doing.[/QUOTE]
[I]Compare it to how it took the Russians 8 year to fully withdraw all their forces from the Baltic states after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[[URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states"]Wiki[/URL]]
But ok those are not comparable[/I]

It was Trump who promised that though, and Biden was just respecting that agreement.

I'm just wondering though. Will the US now expand less tax money towards the military or will nothing change in that regard? Your medical and education bills are kinda legendary around the world ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Originally Posted by Helz

They have been killing themselves for thousands of years. The biggest thing I see as changed is that now small warlords have giant tanks and cannons they can do it with.

Maybe so, but inside a Mosque? I'm not a Muslim but even I think suicide bombing inside a Mosque is just insane.

Originally Posted by Helz

The leadership on how withdraw happened was impressively incompetent. Hopefully it will stand as an example of exactly why you should listen to the advice of professionals in your field when you have no clue what you are doing.

Compare it to how it took the Russians 8 year to fully withdraw all their forces from the Baltic states after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[Wiki]
But ok those are not comparable

It was Trump who promised that though, and Biden was just respecting that agreement.

I'm just wondering though. Will the US now expand less tax money towards the military or will nothing change in that regard? Your medical and education bills are kinda legendary around the world ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It seems like it's not going well for Afghanistan.
In a suicide blast inside a Shia Mosque, in Kunduz, killed over 100 people. It's the third deadly attack this week apparently targeting religious institutions.
If you want a source, it seems every news media in existence has covered it - take your pick. If it's all the same to you, I got it from video description in a recent [URL="https://youtu.be/sOGtHBuAhWw"]UN Watch video[/URL].

How in the world can any Muslim do suicide bombing inside a Mosque of all places? They've gone completely mad.

It seems like it's not going well for Afghanistan.
In a suicide blast inside a Shia Mosque, in Kunduz, killed over 100 people. It's the third deadly attack this week apparently targeting religious institutions.
If you want a source, it seems every news media in existence has covered it - take your pick. If it's all the same to you, I got it from video description in a recent UN Watch video.

How in the world can any Muslim do suicide bombing inside a Mosque of all places? They've gone completely mad.

Ahh, nvm.
For example, the Al-Qaeda, they were armed by the US own arms dealers - which was approved by the presidential administration at the time.
[url]https://www.businessinsider.com/how-us-arms-dealers-sell-weapons-2014-4[/url]

Afterwards spending tax money for troops to go fight those very groups you just armed seem illogical unless those giving the orders got paid by those who sold the arms to begin with?
The problem with that is - could such a level of corruption be really kept a secret?
Surely there has to be some agency responsible for investigating corruption in the US, and from such an agency even "national security" labels wouldn't be off limits. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Unless it was the governments own idea all along, in which welcome to The [URL="https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/war-for-oil-conspiracy-theories-may-be-right"]War-for-Oil Conspiracy Theories[/URL]! Which I'm honestly still confused about, and have trouble finding a good explanation for. :S

Ahh, nvm.
For example, the Al-Qaeda, they were armed by the US own arms dealers - which was approved by the presidential administration at the time.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-...weapons-2014-4

Afterwards spending tax money for troops to go fight those very groups you just armed seem illogical unless those giving the orders got paid by those who sold the arms to begin with?
The problem with that is - could such a level of corruption be really kept a secret?
Surely there has to be some agency responsible for investigating corruption in the US, and from such an agency even "national security" labels wouldn't be off limits. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Unless it was the governments own idea all along, in which welcome to The War-for-Oil Conspiracy Theories! Which I'm honestly still confused about, and have trouble finding a good explanation for.

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;944005]
There's Muslim and Muslim, though. Talibans were [I]very[/I] restrictive, couldn't care less for human rights, and had (still have) no intent to create any democracy. The previous regime was islamic as well (the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan sounds pretty... islamic), but much more liberal and democratic compared to the talibans' regime.[/QUOTE]
What are your thoughts on opinions such as this?
[I](I will copy paste quite raw, I know you don't mind :love:)[/I]
[table="class: grid, align: center"]
[tr]
[td]I think the idea of forcing that society to adopt the way we structure our society is very foolish. They are a very tribal people and even saying 'The taliban' took it back misses the fact that the majority of the fighters we are calling Taliban have no loyalty to such a group
We get too caught up in labels in general from my experience over there. They are just not organized in such a structured way.[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][I]"what do u think the taliban are?"[/I]

Its a label 1st world countries use so they can talk about the fight in terms people will understand
They are really and truly on the most basic level tribal groups
Some like etchother and some dont. Its many small groups doing things, every one with their own goals and beliefs[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]You can group everyone that say- fights the US forces and give them a name but they are no more an organization than we are as a species
Largely. Its all about power structures[/td]
[/tr]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][I]"so they're not some collective org?"[/I]

In a way they are but its more semantics
Its a category we make
A label we put on what is essentially a superorganism although that lable suggests its an organism.
If that makes sense[/td]
[/tr]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Its a huge difference in how society's are structured. And your dealing with people who's loyaltys go back many generations and hold blood feuds with other people
For an example, There was this city in Helmand Province Afghanistan that had an insurgent issue. Some foreign fighters came to fight us. The city was getting pissed because they were setting IED's but some were blowing their own people up. That city was made up mostly of 2 sects that had issues with etchother. We stepped in and took out the insurgents and they were happy. After a while we left but came back a month later to discover the town was abandoned.
Turns out that with the insurgents gone the two groups went back to fighting and they killed etch-other off. The survivors were so few they just left.
In our minds we may look at that as a city, the town as one group. But it was 3 'tribes' each with their own loyalty's. We can put the label on it to talk about it but it does not change the way that society interacted and our intervention ended up costing dozens of lives of those we 'say' we were there to protect
Anyways.. Im rambling. But I have quite a bit of personal experience over there and can't help but feel like that entire situation should have been expected. In that war we fought them and they used the weapons we gave them to fight the russians to do it. In the next we will fight them again with the weapons we gave them.
The capitalistic war machine keeps grinding out the tax dollars and the objective isn't to win.
Peace is bad for business imo.[/td]
[/tr]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Politicians are scrambling to figure out how they can manipulate how the information is presented to keep them in power while the weapons manufacturers are pushing their lobbyists to get those in power to get that war machine running again
Or that is how I see it anyways[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

I can see how it's possible that we in the west are labeling everyone over there too much.

What I can't quite follow is the "peace if bad for business" statement in combination with politicians.
The military is funded by the money of tax payers. Choosing to spend that money on military gives no money to the politicians, goverment or country. (other than maybe it giving you access to oil or something)

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

There's Muslim and Muslim, though. Talibans were very restrictive, couldn't care less for human rights, and had (still have) no intent to create any democracy. The previous regime was islamic as well (the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan sounds pretty... islamic), but much more liberal and democratic compared to the talibans' regime.

What are your thoughts on opinions such as this?
(I will copy paste quite raw, I know you don't mind )

I think the idea of forcing that society to adopt the way we structure our society is very foolish. They are a very tribal people and even saying 'The taliban' took it back misses the fact that the majority of the fighters we are calling Taliban have no loyalty to such a group We get too caught up in labels in general from my experience over there. They are just not organized in such a structured way.

"what do u think the taliban are?" Its a label 1st world countries use so they can talk about the fight in terms people will understand They are really and truly on the most basic level tribal groups Some like etchother and some dont. Its many small groups doing things, every one with their own goals and beliefs

You can group everyone that say- fights the US forces and give them a name but they are no more an organization than we are as a species Largely. Its all about power structures

"so they're not some collective org?" In a way they are but its more semantics Its a category we make A label we put on what is essentially a superorganism although that lable suggests its an organism. If that makes sense

Its a huge difference in how society's are structured. And your dealing with people who's loyaltys go back many generations and hold blood feuds with other people For an example, There was this city in Helmand Province Afghanistan that had an insurgent issue. Some foreign fighters came to fight us. The city was getting pissed because they were setting IED's but some were blowing their own people up. That city was made up mostly of 2 sects that had issues with etchother. We stepped in and took out the insurgents and they were happy. After a while we left but came back a month later to discover the town was abandoned. Turns out that with the insurgents gone the two groups went back to fighting and they killed etch-other off. The survivors were so few they just left. In our minds we may look at that as a city, the town as one group. But it was 3 'tribes' each with their own loyalty's. We can put the label on it to talk about it but it does not change the way that society interacted and our intervention ended up costing dozens of lives of those we 'say' we were there to protect Anyways.. Im rambling. But I have quite a bit of personal experience over there and can't help but feel like that entire situation should have been expected. In that war we fought them and they used the weapons we gave them to fight the russians to do it. In the next we will fight them again with the weapons we gave them. The capitalistic war machine keeps grinding out the tax dollars and the objective isn't to win. Peace is bad for business imo.

Politicians are scrambling to figure out how they can manipulate how the information is presented to keep them in power while the weapons manufacturers are pushing their lobbyists to get those in power to get that war machine running again Or that is how I see it anyways

I can see how it's possible that we in the west are labeling everyone over there too much.

What I can't quite follow is the "peace if bad for business" statement in combination with politicians.
The military is funded by the money of tax payers. Choosing to spend that money on military gives no money to the politicians, goverment or country. (other than maybe it giving you access to oil or something)

[QUOTE=Voss;943965]My point had less to do with overall government policy among all the countries in the world and more specifically with "all brown people are terrorists"

"[I]We don’t know. We just learned, for example, that at least 100 of the refugees U.S. military has flown out of Kabul – people we’re told are heroes – are in fact on terror watch lists. One man we evacuated apparently works for ISIS. Today, an Afghan interpreter told Fox News that this kind of thing is happening constantly. People are getting on planes in Kabul without any proof of identification whatsoever. It’s like voting in California:

Interpreter Carl, Aug. 27: I know people that are in the same situation as I am right now. They have fought for the United States, they have provided supplies for the United States. But guess what? There are people that are getting inside the airport that have never worked, they knew somebody with a green card or they know somebody with a passport, that’s how they got through inside. I know people that are inside but they never worked.[/I]"

[url]https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-afghan-refugees[/url][/QUOTE]
Ahh, that's a topic I'm not really willing to touch on in this thread tbh.
But in this regard, the people of US have the benefit of hindsight with regards EU having let in endless amounts of refugees from the middle east back in whenever it was. Except you'd have it in a miniscule of it's scale.

Originally Posted by Voss

My point had less to do with overall government policy among all the countries in the world and more specifically with "all brown people are terrorists"

"We don’t know. We just learned, for example, that at least 100 of the refugees U.S. military has flown out of Kabul – people we’re told are heroes – are in fact on terror watch lists. One man we evacuated apparently works for ISIS. Today, an Afghan interpreter told Fox News that this kind of thing is happening constantly. People are getting on planes in Kabul without any proof of identification whatsoever. It’s like voting in California:

Interpreter Carl, Aug. 27: I know people that are in the same situation as I am right now. They have fought for the United States, they have provided supplies for the United States. But guess what? There are people that are getting inside the airport that have never worked, they knew somebody with a green card or they know somebody with a passport, that’s how they got through inside. I know people that are inside but they never worked."

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tuck...fghan-refugees

Ahh, that's a topic I'm not really willing to touch on in this thread tbh.
But in this regard, the people of US have the benefit of hindsight with regards EU having let in endless amounts of refugees from the middle east back in whenever it was. Except you'd have it in a miniscule of it's scale.

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;943960]
The taliban movement is a fundamentalist islamic movement; "taliban" means "student", implying "of the faith". [/QUOTE]
With Taliban in charge the country will be Islamic on a governmental level, that's how I interpret this.
But Afghanistan is 99.7% Muslim, so there's not really an [I]actual[/I] difference here right? Apart from maybe it's the more "radical" Muslims being in charge.

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

The taliban movement is a fundamentalist islamic movement; "taliban" means "student", implying "of the faith".

With Taliban in charge the country will be Islamic on a governmental level, that's how I interpret this.
But Afghanistan is 99.7% Muslim, so there's not really an actual difference here right? Apart from maybe it's the more "radical" Muslims being in charge.

[QUOTE=Voss;943959]Cool that US is ending a never-ending war.
Very sad that America will be leaving behind some Afghans who helped (interpretters, etc).
Very sad that some of America's right are already against bringing in those refugees (which is racist AND unpatriotic).

I don't have much more of an opinion than that because I don't have a military intelligence background.[/QUOTE]
It's not racist though, that's a misleading thought.
If you look at the study I posted [URL="https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php/48228-Double-Standards-in-Racism-and-Sexism?p=943949#post943949"]here[/URL](which comprised of ~11k people), you'll find that in the UK people have a consensus that ethnic diversity is good, but at the same time that the rate of change and migration is too rapid. It's just a small part of a ~160 pages of that study, but it showcases well how the usual "you're against immigrants makes you racist" train of thought is just, for all intents and purposes, proven wrong.

Originally Posted by Voss

Cool that US is ending a never-ending war.
Very sad that America will be leaving behind some Afghans who helped (interpretters, etc).
Very sad that some of America's right are already against bringing in those refugees (which is racist AND unpatriotic).

I don't have much more of an opinion than that because I don't have a military intelligence background.

It's not racist though, that's a misleading thought.
If you look at the study I posted here(which comprised of ~11k people), you'll find that in the UK people have a consensus that ethnic diversity is good, but at the same time that the rate of change and migration is too rapid. It's just a small part of a ~160 pages of that study, but it showcases well how the usual "you're against immigrants makes you racist" train of thought is just, for all intents and purposes, proven wrong.

Ngl, this was the first time I heard of it.
Upon searching for an official announcement by the president, I learned that Trump is no longer it.
I think I might have watched one too many cat videos..
:calix:

From what I understand,
-In something called the "Doha Agreement" Trump promised the withdrawal to the Taliban.
-That agreement forced Biden to choose between a withdrawal now or an escalation of the war.

I wanted to search for Trump's reason of the promise and what I could find was:
[QUOTE]“Trump had no real sense of what was at stake in the war or why to stay,” writes Georgetown professor Paul Miller[/QUOTE]To which I must sadly say that I don't either. If someone could educate me on that - that'd be great. ╰(*´︶`*)╯

What are the Taliban, and why did Trump promise it to them instead of the Afghan government?
What's that Taliban takeover of Afghanistan right after the withdrawal? Sounds to me like "Afghanistan's takeover of Afghanistan", ngl. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ngl, this was the first time I heard of it.
Upon searching for an official announcement by the president, I learned that Trump is no longer it.
I think I might have watched one too many cat videos..


From what I understand,
-In something called the "Doha Agreement" Trump promised the withdrawal to the Taliban.
-That agreement forced Biden to choose between a withdrawal now or an escalation of the war.

I wanted to search for Trump's reason of the promise and what I could find was:

“Trump had no real sense of what was at stake in the war or why to stay,” writes Georgetown professor Paul Miller

To which I must sadly say that I don't either. If someone could educate me on that - that'd be great. â•°(*´ï¸¶`*)╯

What are the Taliban, and why did Trump promise it to them instead of the Afghan government?
What's that Taliban takeover of Afghanistan right after the withdrawal? Sounds to me like "Afghanistan's takeover of Afghanistan", ngl. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯