so the question is: do you support imperial occupation, which is what is producing the present, chaotic state of things, or do you support national struggle for independence? the taliban is several things: there are elements of 'islamism', Pakistani territorial maneuvering, and obviously elements of national liberation. so what element do you support? because it seems to me, all you support is the bizarre and ludicrous orientalizing narrative of Desert Savages ruling Insanely, monstrously attacking the poor Humanitarian missionaries sent there to do God's work. i'm guessing you also buy the silly narratives on Libya, Serbia, Syria, Palestine, any Muslim, the War on Terror, whatever else too? how is this any different?
Crow posted:Pakistan ISI is far more involved with the Taliban than vague Saudi financiers. Karzai isn't a "religionationalist ultrareactionary" he's a narcofeudal warlord. as far as i can tell, the US doesn't like him but due to his connections (especially in the drug trade) and political horsetrading, he's the only one who can head up the occupation regime. that has nothing to do with religion and has far and away to do with nationalism, it's occupation plain and simple.
so the question is: do you support imperial occupation, which is what is producing the present, chaotic state of things, or do you support national struggle for independence? the taliban is several things: there are elements of 'islamism', Pakistani territorial maneuvering, and obviously elements of national liberation. so what element do you support? because it seems to me, all you support is the bizarre and ludicrous orientalizing narrative of Desert Savages ruling Insanely, monstrously attacking the poor Humanitarian missionaries sent there to do God's work. i'm guessing you also buy the silly narratives on Libya, Serbia, Syria, Palestine, any Muslim, the War on Terror, whatever else too? how is this any different?
Thanks for answering the questions I didn't ask!
Britain's Prince Harry, who compared shooting insurgents in Afghanistan to playing video games, "has probably developed a mental problem", the Taliban said Tuesday.
.
WOAOoAoAh Insane religious nnutjobs!!!!!
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:'horsetrading' is a p racist way to describe afghani politics
sorry i meant goatherding
discipline posted:donald I thought of you the other day
mustang19 posted:discipline posted:who gives the saudis money fuckwit
the us and other countries. which may or may not stop, not that this thread hasn't gone to space.
cutting off the saudis wouldn't necessarily kill the taliban either, there are always fundamentalist crazies trying to overthrow secular governments.
Sounds like Islam is doing pretty well to me
discipline posted:discipline posted:
Which one of these videos opens up with a (I think) Alexander Haig orientalist diatribe of the brutality of Asian people?
Between the Taliban taking over Kabul in September 1996 and the Group of Eight (G-8) summit in the summer of 2001, neither the administration of president Bill Clinton nor that of his successor, President George W Bush, ever designated Afghanistan as a terrorist or even a rogue state: the Taliban were wined and dined as long as they played the Pipelineistan game in Central Asia (see Pipelineistan revisited, December 24-25, 2003). Unocal - which had put the CentGas Pipeline Consortium in place - hired Henry Kissinger as a consultant. Unocal also hired two very well-connected Afghans: Zalmay Khalilzad, a Pashtun with a PhD from the University of Chicago and former Paul Wolfowitz aide, and Hamid Karzai, a Pashtun from Kandahar. In 1996, both Khalilzad and Karzai were ultra-pro-Taliban. Karzai is now Afghanistan's US-backed ruler. Khalilzad also made splendid career moves: Bush-appointed National Security Council member (working under Condoleezza Rice), "special envoy" to Afghanistan (only nine days after the Karzai government was sworn in), and current US ambassador.
The Taliban didn't want to play ball: every time, they wanted more money and more investments for the roads and the infrastructure of their ravaged country - until an exasperated Washington decided to finish them off. This was discussed in Geneva in May 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa in July 2001, and finally at a Berlin hotel, also that July, a meeting involving US, Russian, German and Pakistani officials. Asia Times Online later learned in Islamabad that the US plan was to strike against the Taliban from bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan before October 2001. Then the terrorist attacks of September 11 happened, providing Washington the perfect excuse to go it alone.
A less publicised leak by the same website [Wikileaks] in March 2010 exposed a confidential CIA document urging the use of abused Afghan women to shore up support for the war.
“Afghan women could serve as ideal messengers in humanising the ISAF role in combating the Taliban because of women’s ability to speak personally and credibly about their experiences under the Taliban, their aspirations for the future, and their fears for a Taliban victory,” read the memo. . . .
Though we don’t expect anything different from the most corrupt and dirty puppet regime of the world, the pain of Afghan women turns chronic when the world believes that the US and NATO has donated liberation, democracy and human and women rights for Afghanistan; whereas, after eight years of the US and allies’ aggression under the banner of “war on terror”, they empowered the most brutal terrorists of the Northern Alliance and the former Russian puppets – the Khalqis and Parchamis – and by relying on them, the US imposed a puppet government on Afghan people. And instead of uprooting its Taliban and Al-Qaeda creations, the US and NATO continues to kill our innocent and poor civilians, mostly women and children, in their vicious air raids.
“During the Taliban’s regime such atrocities weren’t as rife as it is now and the graph is hiking each day. Eighteen-year-old Aisha is just an example and cutting ears, noses and toes, torturing and even slaughtering is a norm in Afghanistan,” Joya said…
Malalai Joya said she would be “very happy” to see foreign troops leave. “Currently, Afghan people especially women are squashed between three enemies: Taliban, fundamentalist warlords and troops. If the foreign enemy leaves the Afghan grounds my people would face two internal enemies.
“The US used the plight of Afghan women as an excuse to occupy Afghanistan in 2001 by filling television screens, Internet pages and newspapers with pictures of women being shot down or beaten up in public. Once again, it is moulding the oppression on women into a propaganda tool to gain support and staining their hands with ever-deepening treason against Afghan women,” Joya added.
Edited by mustang19 ()
Edited by mustang19 ()
Edited by mustang19 ()
Edited by mustang19 ()
Edited by mustang19 ()
Edited by mustang19 ()
mustang19 posted:Crow posted:In an interview with FRANCE 24, she criticised TIME’s cover as another “false slogan” to justify the war and argued that brutal crimes against women have actually been on the rise during the nine years of US occupation.
“During the Taliban’s regime such atrocities weren’t as rife as it is now and the graph is hiking each day. Eighteen-year-old Aisha is just an example and cutting ears, noses and toes, torturing and even slaughtering is a norm in Afghanistan,” Joya said…
Malalai Joya said she would be “very happy” to see foreign troops leave. “Currently, Afghan people especially women are squashed between three enemies: Taliban, fundamentalist warlords and troops. If the foreign enemy leaves the Afghan grounds my people would face two internal enemies.
“The US used the plight of Afghan women as an excuse to occupy Afghanistan in 2001 by filling television screens, Internet pages and newspapers with pictures of women being shot down or beaten up in public. Once again, it is moulding the oppression on women into a propaganda tool to gain support and staining their hands with ever-deepening treason against Afghan women,” Joya added.if this is true it would change my mind. but france 24? i dunno.
Edited by mustang19 ()
Edited by mustang19 ()
Crow posted:http://firedoglake.com/2010/08/06/times-cover-the-cia-and-afghan-women/
A less publicised leak by the same website [Wikileaks] in March 2010 exposed a confidential CIA document urging the use of abused Afghan women to shore up support for the war.
“Afghan women could serve as ideal messengers in humanising the ISAF role in combating the Taliban because of women’s ability to speak personally and credibly about their experiences under the Taliban, their aspirations for the future, and their fears for a Taliban victory,” read the memo. . . .Though we don’t expect anything different from the most corrupt and dirty puppet regime of the world, the pain of Afghan women turns chronic when the world believes that the US and NATO has donated liberation, democracy and human and women rights for Afghanistan; whereas, after eight years of the US and allies’ aggression under the banner of “war on terror”, they empowered the most brutal terrorists of the Northern Alliance and the former Russian puppets – the Khalqis and Parchamis – and by relying on them, the US imposed a puppet government on Afghan people. And instead of uprooting its Taliban and Al-Qaeda creations, the US and NATO continues to kill our innocent and poor civilians, mostly women and children, in their vicious air raids.
lol wow. wikileaks took all the subtlety out of anti-imperialism...