Afghans opposed to foriegn occupation

[ghundal]

To all the flat earth society members:

Please explain what you think of Afghans who are opposed to foreign occupation.

Answer these questions for me:

Are Afghans opposed to foreign occupations, or in favor of it?

Is the Afghan resistance serving Pakistan? Do they fight for Pakistan?

Do Afghans want US-NATO to stay in Afghanistan?

[ghundal]

waiting, I know you read all my posts since you follow me around

[randolph85]

heres some friendly advice, go for quality instead of quantity when you post.

[ghundal]

advice taken, will edit now

[randolph85]

To all the flat earth society members:

Please explain what you think of Afghans who are opposed to foreign occupation.

Answer these questions for me:

Are Afghans opposed to foreign occupations, or in favor of it?

Is the Afghan resistance serving Pakistan? Do they fight for Pakistan?

Do Afghans want US-NATO to stay in Afghanistan?

1. i dont think any afghan in their right mind supports occupation, unless u count some minorities groups who are now thriving when before they werent. cant really blame them, this is a failure of stupid domestic afghan policy for the last couple hundred years.

2. serving pakistan? i would say their serving their interests. fighting for pakistan? no. just like how the mujahadin served US interest against the soviets back in the 80s, but the mujahadin sure as hell werent fighting for america.

3. this is a broad question, some people think nato causes instability while others think they maintain whatever stability is possible, relative to what happened in the early/mid 90s. up and leaving is a recipe for disaster and the 90s are an example of what happens when there is sudden political disengagement from afghanistan. there needs to be an agreement between all sides and parties involved in the war before nato leaves. if the russians and americans had done this in the early 90s, there would of been no civil war. and no, i dont trust the word of the afghan government, taliban, americans, pakis or anyone else involved in afghanistan that they will keep their word in the event of a sudden withdrawal with no agreement made. hence, the idea that nato will leave and the taliban will go to kabul for talks and there will be a smooth transition into a comprehensive power sharing government is frankly bull****. if u want to see afghans at their most brutal, go watch them trying to compete for power then u will see thinks like honor, religion, and their word go flying out the window.

[ghundal]

[QUOTE=randolph85;426718]

1. i dont think any afghan in their right mind supports occupation, unless u count some minorities groups who are now thriving when before they werent. cant really blame them, this is a failure of stupid domestic afghan policy for the last couple hundred years.

No Afghan supports foreigners, or their presence. Ex-pat Afghans are not the representative voice of Afghans. Resitance has spread to the north (not just pashtun anymore).

2. serving pakistan? i would say their serving their interests. fighting for pakistan? no. just like how the mujahadin served US interest against the soviets back in the 80s, but the mujahadin sure as hell werent fighting for america.

The Afghan resistance is serving their own interest first, and this interest trumps all others. If it happens to align with another nations interests such as say Pakistan or Iran, who cares? This is not a game where foreigner aggression is welcomed as some sort of balancing act?

3. this is a broad question, some people think nato causes instability while others think they maintain whatever stability is possible

US-NATO is the single source of instability in Afghanistan, and the rest of the region. They offer nothing to Afghanistan except instability.

relative to what happened in the early/mid 90s. up and leaving is a recipe for disaster and the 90s are an example of what happens when there is sudden political disengagement from afghanistan.

The Taliban were a response to the disorder and chaos to the 90's, and again continue to be a response to the current disorder and chaos brought by the presence of US-NATO. US-NATO is the single barrier to peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan. This is pure fact alone.

there needs to be an agreement between all sides and parties involved in the war before nato leaves. if the russians and americans had done this in the early 90s, there would of been no civil war.

US-NATO should be forced to leave by all Afghan parties. No agreement needs to be made with a defeated adversary except that of complete withdrawal.

and no, i dont trust the word of the afghan government, taliban, americans, pakis or anyone else involved in afghanistan that they will keep their word in the event of a sudden withdrawal with no agreement made. hence, the idea that nato will leave and the taliban will go to kabul for talks and there will be a smooth transition into a comprehensive power sharing government is frankly bull****. if u want to see afghans at their most brutal, go watch them trying to compete for power then u will see thinks like honor, religion, and their word go flying out the window

Please offer me an example of when the current Afghan resistance went back on their word. they were a response to others going back on their word. Yes, they had an extreme and almost literal interpretation of Sharia law, but above all, they brought much needed law, order, and security to Afghanistan, something that no other force can or will be able to do. No Afghan will trust their "security" in the hands of foreigners who have only been waging a war of aggression against the Afghan people. There is no exagerration here, but mere truth. US-NATO presence and operations is the barrier to peace and security in Afghanistan. They, with their presence as a foreign aggressor is not being tolerated, and will not be tolerated by any Afghan.

[Nokia_Apridy]

haga KP Topic awo da Topic ta pam waka........

da Noro Wadono ka GADA khwand warkaye khu Khpal..........

[khyaal]

Afghanistan will oppose punjab's occupation as well. Brave afghans will never recognise any paki puppets on their soil and we hope they will keep on their struggle for the liberation of their land british hand overed occupied pakhtunohwka now annexed by pakistan.

[khashayar]

heres some friendly advice, go for quality instead of quantity when you post.

lol

[Catya Sher]

Well laid out counter-argument, ghundal. This is a very clear statement
of truth.

WHY are so many here on this forum afraid to agree with what he says??
That's what I want to know.

[randolph85]

Well laid out counter-argument, ghundal. This is a very clear statement
of truth.

WHY are so many here on this forum afraid to agree with what he says??
That's what I want to know.

because what he says are emotional rants which dont take into account reality not to mention his flip flopping views. he is easily fooled by politicians, like the taliban and karzai. when he hears something he likes he takes it to be gospel. for example, just the other day he was defending karzai. his notions that all afghans are honorable/honest, that this war isnt a proxy war by powers greater than afghans, that everything will be lovey dovey after a nato withdrawal, and that afghans are the most important people on earth which everything evolves around are simply false.

[ghundal]

I don't want to get into too much of a lengthy discussion here as I will be repeating myself, but I will say that I do not over think or overestimate anything to fit a dream.

When words are aligned with what a populations wants, the populations desires usually end up being the end result one way or another.

[randolph85]

No Afghan supports foreigners, or their presence. Ex-pat Afghans are not the representative voice of Afghans. Resitance has spread to the north (not just pashtun anymore).

so u are telling me that there are no tajiks, hazara, uzbeks, or even some pashtuns who support the nato presence? u think they would rather be under taliban rule? thats just delusional. where do u get the info that the resistance in northern areas are conducted by non pashtuns? these attacks are mostly in pashtun areas in the north. and believe it or not, its not very difficult for talibs to travel somewhere and conduct an attack. u are mistaking supporting the nato presence with people supporting occupation for no reason, they are chosing what benefits their community after being marginalized in the past.

The Afghan resistance is serving their own interest first, and this interest trumps all others. If it happens to align with another nations interests such as say Pakistan or Iran, who cares? This is not a game where foreigner aggression is welcomed as some sort of balancing act?

who cares? the poorest country on earth where people starve to death and have to sell their babies for money cares. its the dont care attitude that has brought chaos to the country. like the afghans said in the 60s and 70s about soviet involvement in the country where they said they didnt question the involvement as long as it brought them development in the here and now. when ur a tiny pawn on a giant chess board like afghanistan is, u cant afford to not care about what interests u are indirectly supporting.

US-NATO is the single source of instability in Afghanistan, and the rest of the region. They offer nothing to Afghanistan except instability.

afghanistan was in the ****ter long before the nato invasion, it was in the ****ter back when afghanistan wasnt even on the western radar in the 90s. here u are again, not looking at the big picture. afghanistan is weak and dependent on other nations, if nato leaves that just leaves the door open for other imperialists to take a hold of the country, like pakistan, iran, india, russia, and the arabs did after najib fell. hence there needs to be a comprehensive agreement between all sides as nato leaves.

The Taliban were a response to the disorder and chaos to the 90's, and again continue to be a response to the current disorder and chaos brought by the presence of US-NATO. US-NATO is the single barrier to peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan. This is pure fact alone.

are u reading what i am saying? the disorder and chaos happened when america and russia completely ditched afghanistan without cleaning up after themselves. sure nato is **** but laying all of the blame on them? lol u give them far too much credit here. if they are the biggest barrier to peace and reconciliation, then why was there no peace and reconciliation in the 90s between mujahadin groups or mujahadin groups and the taliban? this was when afghanistan was off the western radar.

US-NATO should be forced to leave by all Afghan parties. No agreement needs to be made with a defeated adversary except that of complete withdrawal.

here u are saying that nato should be forced to leave by all afghan parties, implying that all afghan parties arent forcing nato to leave while at the begining of ur post u say all afghans are opposed to the western presence there...lol

even the prophet made agreements with his enemies. agreements are how wars end. the russians left afghanistan based on an agreement with the US, pakistan, and the UN.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

so u are telling me that there are no tajiks, hazara, uzbeks, or even some pashtuns who support the nato presence? u think they would rather be under taliban rule? thats just delusional. where do u get the info that the resistance in northern areas are conducted by non pashtuns? these attacks are mostly in pashtun areas in the north. and believe it or not, its not very difficult for talibs to travel somewhere and conduct an attack. u are mistaking supporting the nato presence with people supporting occupation for no reason, they are chosing what benefits their community after being marginalized in the past.



who cares? the poorest country on earth where people starve to death and have to sell their babies for money cares. its the dont care attitude that has brought chaos to the country. like the afghans said in the 60s and 70s about soviet involvement in the country where they said they didnt question the involvement as long as it brought them development in the here and now. when ur a tiny pawn on a giant chess board like afghanistan is, u cant afford to not care about what interests u are indirectly supporting.



afghanistan was in the ****ter long before the nato invasion, it was in the ****ter back when afghanistan wasnt even on the western radar in the 90s. here u are again, not looking at the big picture. afghanistan is weak and dependent on other nations, if nato leaves that just leaves the door open for other imperialists to take a hold of the country, like pakistan, iran, india, russia, and the arabs did after najib fell. hence there needs to be a comprehensive agreement between all sides as nato leaves.



are u reading what i am saying? the disorder and chaos happened when america and russia completely ditched afghanistan without cleaning up after themselves. sure nato is **** but laying all of the blame on them? lol u give them far too much credit here. if they are the biggest barrier to peace and reconciliation, then why was there no peace and reconciliation in the 90s between mujahadin groups or mujahadin groups and the taliban? this was when afghanistan was off the western radar.



here u are saying that nato should be forced to leave by all afghan parties, implying that all afghan parties arent forcing nato to leave while at the begining of ur post u say all afghans are opposed to the western presence there...lol

even the prophet made agreements with his enemies. agreements are how wars end. the russians left afghanistan based on an agreement with the US, pakistan, and the UN.

1. The attacks are not only in pashtun areas:

"Throughout 2010, for example, the pace of insurgent attacks on the Karzai regime and coalition targets in northern Afghanistan has steadily increased. While there are pockets of Pashtun populations in the northern provinces, they are neither numerous enough nor geographically dispersed enough to be responsible for all the attacks that have and are occurring. In the months ahead, there are certain to be escalating attacks on US-NATO supply routes into Afghanistan from Central Asia—the US-led coalition’s weakest link in the north—and it won’t always be clear if the attackers are Taliban Pashtuns or America’s jilted northern allies."
http://the-diplomat.com/2010/11/01/g...er-surprise/3/

2. Regarding NATO and the idea that local imperialist powers will take its place... so what? Why does that obligate Americans to waste their time, blood, and money to stave off anyone else taking a hold of the Afghan theater? Also, it is where NATO has placed her troops that violence generally increases unless insurgents decide to lay low until they desire to mount another spectacular attack:

"We add more troops, which strengthens the Taliban and weakens support for the government. Suicide attacks, IEDs, military and civilian dead or wounded—all rise commensuratelywith eachincrease in foreign troop or Afghan government presence."

http://www.thenation.com/article/157...-insider-talks

3. NATO being one imperialist tool does not make her a more optimal choice simply because American firepower buttresses the majority of her actions. Take a look at the selective NATO interventions in regard to Syria vs Libya; or Bahrain and Yemen being neglected per the lack of security interests for NATO. In fact, the recent issues in Libya make it ever more apparent that NATO is nothing more than a front for Western interventionalism selectively.

4. The Prophet's treaties were based on divine revelation and guidance. Defensive warfare is an act enshrined and prescribed within Islamic law that has no abrogation done to it. A treaty disrespecting that right actually goes against the Prophet's example and is blatantly against the Islamic charter. NATO and the Afghan government's constructs are based on hoisting a secular state system onto Afghanistan without the will or consent of the Afghans. If this is the case, then that absolutely gives those fighting a war of attrition the right to continue to do so.

The other issue is that all treaties drafted were done on nearly equal footing. The Prophet could have done in Mecca on the first Pilgrimage attempt, but the fact that the Quraysh repeatedly violated Hudaybia allowed the Muslims to gain an even stronger moral imperitive when they actually did take it. His treaty with the Jews and Christians enshrined in the preserved Constitution of Medina indicate that legal matters were to proceed through his person. In that instance, it was the Muslims that were permitted to practice their brand of law. In this instance, the treaty would demand that the Taliban or all other Islamic insuregents observe Afghanistan's constitution as it now stands, which is an affront to Islamic Law.

5. I do agree with you that the Afghans as a whole cannot be assigned the blanket view of wanting the Taliban back. Mazer e Sharif is a prime example of that.

6. Show me once instance where NATO ever left once some power sharing agreement was drafted with them. That is not their signature modus operandi. Take a look at Iraq. They are getting more and more upset that Maliki may possibly hoist the remaining 45,000. So I am sorry, but I disagree with the options that you present which are:
NATO stays indefinitely (lets face it, it is indefinitly) because those regional players are never going away and they are still in Okinawa to this day status post stability vs the idea that chaos will ensure if they leave. Its a nonstarter and goes against the notion that people have the right to fight until their last breath until they eject a foreign occupier.

[faye]

it's catch 22 though b.a., the longer the afghans fight the longer your beloved country can keep polluting the land of afghanistan with depleted uranium and their toxic waste. their sneaky genocide of muslims.