The Taliban; what's their deal?

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: alchemize

Hey, here's a thought. Why don't you or the other two morons try putting together some logic and evidence that this pipeline was the reason we went to war with afghanistan?

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

The deal on the pipeline was signed on December 27, 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Signing the agreement was made possible by the invasion of Afghanistan by United States military forces a year prior, which overthrew the Taliban government controlling most of Afghanistan. Building the pipeline was cited by some critics of the Bush administration as a motivation for the invasion. However, since then the project has essentially stalled; construction of the Turkmen part is supposed to start in 2006, but the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control.

Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline

The largest share holders of the ADB are Japan and USA, each holding 12.8% of the shares

Asian Development Bank

(at least) part of the reason
no?

no?

I'm sorry, straightalker distracted me and I had to file a report to the illuminati.

Let's see, I was just about to pick apart your logic and evidence - ah that's right, you provided no logic nor any evidence. cum hoc ergo propter hoc. (I love wikipedia too!) Try again?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Let's see, I was just about to pick apart your logic and evidence - ah that's right, you provided no logic nor any evidence. cum hoc ergo propter hoc. (I love wikipedia too!) Try again?

lol, all right
But now you got me wondering ( us morons do alot of that, usually about butterflies), what is your answer to tommy's question?

Why are we killing them again?

I know you will provide lots of logic and evidence to educate me

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: alchemize

I'm sorry, straightalker distracted me and I had to file a report to the illuminati.

p.s.
I have not received the report

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: alchemize

Let's see, I was just about to pick apart your logic and evidence - ah that's right, you provided no logic nor any evidence. cum hoc ergo propter hoc. (I love wikipedia too!) Try again?

lol, all right
But now you got me wondering ( us morons do alot of that, usually about butterflies), what is your answer to tommy's question?

Why are we killing them again?

I know you will provide lots of logic and evidence to educate me

yllus summed it up pretty well, but I'll give a slightly different answer.

Because our government (along with many others) committed to uphold an elected government in Afghanistan after the war. To uphold this elected governement requires containing and eliminating violent anti-government militias.

The Taliban is acting outside of the rule of law (although arguably they never were in the rule of law), and hence until they resort to peaceful means of politicking and protest, violence will be met with violence. Or more likely, until Afghanistan can provide it's own internal security. That's probably going better than it is in Iraq, for the most part I don't think the Taliban is real popular over there except amongst the standard insane islamists, whatever that percentage may be.

And of course lastly once the Taliban is gone, I and my oil cronies can resume our nightly swims in the gold-filled vault provided by the vast riches from that yet to be built pipeline

 

[Orignal Earl]

The U.S. made a five point ultimatum to the Taliban:

1. deliver to the US all of the leaders of Al Qaeda;
2. Release all imprisoned foreign nationals;
3. Close immediately every terrorist training camp;
4. Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities;
5. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection

On September 22, 2001, the United Arab Emirates and later Saudi Arabia withdrew their recognition of the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, leaving neighboring Pakistan as the only remaining country with diplomatic ties. On October 4, 2001, it is believed that the Taliban covertly offered to turn Bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic shar'ia law [17]. Pakistan is believed to have rejected the offer. On October 7, 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban made an open offer to try Bin Laden in Afghanistan in an Islamic court[18]. This counteroffer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient.[/quote]


Shortly afterward, on October 7, 2001, the United States, aided by the United Kingdom and supported by a coalition of other countries including the NATO alliance, initiated military actions, code named Operation Enduring Freedom, and bombed Taliban and Al Qaeda related camps[19][20]. The stated intent of military operations was to remove the Taliban from power because of the Taliban's refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his involvement in the September 11 attacks, and disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations[21]. On October 14 the Taliban openly counteroffered to hand Bin Laden over to a third country for trial, but only if the Taliban were given evidence of Bin Ladens involvement in 9/11[22]. The U.S. rejected this offer as well and continued with military operations.[/quote]

Originally posted by: alchemize
for the most part I don't think the Taliban is real popular over there except amongst the standard insane islamists, whatever that percentage may be.

And of course lastly once the Taliban is gone

The insurgency, in the form of a Taliban guerrilla war, continues. However, the Pashtun tribal group, with over 40 million members, has a long history of resistance to occupation forces in the region so the Taliban themselves may comprise only a part of the insurgency.

Taliban

Looks like its going to be a real long haul, at least we should be able to get that pipeline up and running and maybe make a few sponsors happy

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

The insurgency, in the form of a Taliban guerrilla war, continues. However, the Pashtun tribal group, with over 40 million members, has a long history of resistance to occupation forces in the region so the Taliban themselves may comprise only a part of the insurgency.

Some famous Pashtuns
Pashtuns

Dr. Zalmay M. Khalilzad (born 1951) is an American diplomat, and is currently the highest-ranking native Afghan and Muslim in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. On September 24, 2003, President Bush named Khalilzad the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan and he took his post in Kabul on November 27. He is currently the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, having been sworn in on June 21, 2005.

He is a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and was one of the signers of the January 26, 1998, PNAC Letter sent to President Bill Clinton. Khalilzad is also a former board member of Friends of Afghanistan, which received extensive U.S. funding.[/quote]

Heyyyyyyyyy

 

[alchemize]

Do you think any of the Taliban's counter-offers came anywhere close to the 5 points outlined? Typical of islam, rather get their ass kicked than lose face. Here's what their offers sounded like to me.

Say you had a KKK uprising in the south in about, oh, 1920 (although arguably that's about 2,200 years ahead of afghanistan as a civilization), that massacred a bunch of african-americans. The north says "turn over them KKK bastards". The south says "how about we will try them in a redneck court of law!". The north says "hell no, turn them over". The south says "OK how about we try them in South Africa, but first you gotta proove that these specific KKK fellers did it!". North says "eff you, here we come".

I would say compared to any previous invasion/occupation of Afghanistan, we're doing famously. Didn't the USSR lose like 15,000 troops? I would say just based on that figure and the troops we lost there is no large or threatening insurgency in Afghanistan. Their support is limited to remote areas, to a specific tribe, and to specific fundies of that specific tribe.

Of course, much like Iraq, the people of Afghanistan will have to stand on their own someday too. Hopefully sooner than later, and hopefully that pipeline will be up by then! My kids need braces!

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: alchemize

I would say compared to any previous invasion/occupation of Afghanistan, we're doing famously. Didn't the USSR lose like 15,000 troops? I would say just based on that figure and the troops we lost there is no large or threatening insurgency in Afghanistan.

Until the Russians decide to play fair and help arm the insurgents
(They could even make a Rambo 3 type movie about it starring the Russian fighter from the Rocky movies)

Hopefully sooner than later, and hopefully that pipeline will be up by then! My kids need braces!

Ahhhh, your in the Energy biz, that explains alot

 

[Orignal Earl]

oops

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
Until the Russians decide to play fair and help arm the insurgents

Highly unlikely, given that the Russians themselves aren't too fond of Islamic terrorists (Beslan, the Moscow theater incident, etc).

 

[straightalker]

This has been my observation. Note. I don't get all my news from CNN and Faux.

Russia is building ties with Islamic Nations wherever it can. Unlike the USA, which is driving Islam away. The best rational strategy for Russia is to build up an alliance against the West within Eurasia as large as it can. Chechnya is something else going on in Russia. That's just a piece of Russian territory seeking independence. One thing is for certain, the premiere Islamic Nation of the World, Iran, has absolutely no interest whatsoever, either for fenatical religious reasons or for political reasons, in terrorizing Russia. Iran and Russia are in an economic alliance and the military alliance at this stage only goes as far as some support personel and supplying missile etc..

A great swath of Islam(jihadism) is on the same Continant as Russia. So Russia has to at least avoid Islamic Nations from falling into the West's control whever possible. Though suckering the USA into it's underbelly by not complaining too much about the two current long "Vietnam" style warz that trash the strength of the USA Military in Iraq and Afghanistan is to Russia's advantage.

The real debt of the USA is by some estimates 90+ trillion in total commitments. That includes standing commitments like retirement pensions etc. The true USA financial situation is presently spiralling into the same sort of calamity that destroyed the old Soviet Union. In thios sense. There's just so much corruption going on it cannot stand or fake standing anymore. The result of the USA collapse would be the restructuring of the Nation into a new entity.

The Taliban, a non-distinct group of nutcase radical Jihadists who are indestinguishable on sight from most everyone else native to that region, will forever conduct a guerilla war, seeking to overthrow the USA out of Afghanistan. And to the Russians who could not care less about the USA, that's just fine and dandy.

Islam is no real threat to Russia or the USA. They are weak militarily and very easily bribed. No. In my opinion the Taliban, Iranianians and the Pakistanis are all perhaps not Pawns but no more than the chess piece known as the Horse. They can't go far but they can leap around and cause a surprising amount of disruption of plans for any who they consider aggressors in the Middle East and also Central Asia. Both regions by the way have huge oil reserves. Oil pipelines are extremely easy juicy targets. Hundreds of miles of pipe unless buried deep underground can't possibly be protected. No way.

Pakistan, which is the breeding ground and refuge from what i've read, of the Taliban, is always just one step away from breaking it's ties with the USA. Nuking Islamic followers in Iran and sending those toxic clouds of radiation into Pakistan could set the population there against the West in a huge way. Egypt, another primarily Islamic Nation, could get ticked off as well. Net gain for the USA after nuking Iran?? Zero militarily and minus trillions in the long haul, depending on if the USA has a pResidential election in 2008 and if so, then who is hired to pick up the current disaster where Bush dumped it.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: jman19
Maybe because they openly harbored enemies of the United States who were responsible for thousands of civilian deaths? :roll: