Do you support the US occupation of Afghanistan?

[torkham]

No to US and to all foreign forces. I cant accept any kafir ferhangi in afghanistan.

[randolph85]

nope, never.

[randolph85]

guys, you shouldn't pay much attention to those who blatantly and emotionally support occupation of hteir country and rape of their mothers and looting of their homes by Americans & CO.

You should be more wary of those who do not say that they are in favor of Americans and yet constantly condemn those who are against America.

thats looking at things in black and white. why don't hezb i islami and the taliban join together as one group if they are both fighting the same enemy? because are against each other and have different ideologies.

why were there 7 main groups in the russian jihad when there should of been just 1? because they were against each other.

these people condemn each other while supposedly having the same goals.

[شمله ور خراساني]

thats looking at things in black and white. why don't hezb i islami and the taliban join together as one group if they are both fighting the same enemy? because are against each other and have different ideologies.

why were there 7 main groups in the russian jihad when there should of been just 1? because they were against each other.

these people condemn each other while supposedly having the same goals.

Its due to Ikhwanism. Hizb Islami unlike many other groups who have merged into Islamit Emirates, still remains on the sam old Ikhwani ideology.

The various factions of groups belonging to Yunus Khalis, Nabi Muhammadi, Itehad, Harakati Inqilabi, Mahaz and even Hizb Islami have denounced their former groups and gave bay'ah to Amirul Momineen.

If it wasn't for the staunch Ikhwani ideology of hizb Islami they would have accepted Mullah Omar as their Amir. But unfortunately, the machiavellist mindset of Ikhwanis won't allow them to accept any other authority above their own party.

This is why Hizbiyyah is not allowed in Islam. Muslims should not cling on to a false notion of a "hizb" within the Ummah. It was the creation of Ahzab whic led to the great fitnah. Any wise man can figure that out.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Oh and if you ask me about those who oppose Mullah Omar for any other reason than Ikhwnism, my answer is this: because they are MUNAFIQEEN!

[MostafaM]

1) The US, per former CIA writings, openly stated that its goal is to avoid Islamist governments from rising to power. In fact, it appears you were asleep at the wheel for the whole Egypt drama. The key question was, when Americans were challenged regarding their double standard for who deserves democracy if democracy results in Islamists gaining power (as the University of Maryland polling shows they likely would), they resorted to commentary about the Muslim Brotherhood that had no basis in reality. Scheuer by way of Margolis states:

http://www.facts-are-facts.com/news/...onterror.ihtml

"U.S. military operations in the Muslim world," he adds, "validate bin Laden's contention the U.S. is attacking Islam and supports any country willing to kill or persecute Muslims." Scheuer, breaking the ultimate taboo, observes of Washington's "one-way alliance" with Israel that "Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight the ropes binding the American Gulliver to the ... Jewish state and its policies." The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are lost causes, Scheuer concludes. The U.S. is totally unable to create legitimate governments in either chaotic nation, only puppet regimes, supported by American bayonets. If the U.S. stays, it will bleed endlessly; if it retreats, it faces political disaster."


---> Take a look at Afghanistan´s history, the history of political islamist movements inside Afghanistan prior to 1975 and tell me one historical fact that Afghanistan was ever ruled a person who united religious and worldly features in one (a caliph or sultan) and when tribes didn´t effectivly ruled their areas.



2) Regarding US attempts to alter the cultural landscape of Afghanistan actively from Woodward ala Scheuer:

"–“Do you understand [asked Secretary of State Clinton] what the alternative would be if we don’t stick to this [waging the Afghan]? she asked. The gains for women will evaporate and the UN would be driven out” [p.102]
So, our soldiers and Marines are dying and being crippled in Afghanistan so Mrs. Muhammad can vote and abort, and so the UN can continue wasting U.S. taxpayer money?"

http://non-intervention.com/594/bob-...and-ignorance/

----> I am not interested in chit-chat that is directed towards an American audience where the US has to legitimize it´s presence in a foreign country with mere slogans like "women´s rights" etc.

We are talking about the strategic aims of the US in Afghanistan.

3) You have not proven that the Pashtuns of the southern Afghan basin viewed the Taliban as imposed outsiders. You contradict yourself. If the Afghans are, as you state, so capable of repelling invaders, then the Taliban would have been repelled had they been seen as foreign imposed elements. Instead the evidence is to the contrary:

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

" In 2001–02 we installed a government in Kabul headed by Karzai. In doing this, we backed one side in a long civil war—the more progressive-secular and urban camp, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, and some Pashtuns and those who live in the north and west. But it excluded one-third of Afghans, the rural, religious, traditional camp, who are Pashtuns in the south and east—which include the Taliban—whose forerunners we backed in 1980s, against the Soviets. "

I refer you to Dr. Kakar's text (an anti taliban Afghan historian) regarding how the rural Afghans functioned under the Taliban:

http://www.institute-for-afghan-stud...ntro_kakar.htm

"Although taliban have never been, until recent times, at the pinnacle of military and political power, they are not new to Afghanistan. They have been a component of the religious establishment and have always ways lived in the shadow of other military, political, and economic groups. Mullah Shor Bazar, an Afghan fighter known for inflicting heavy losses on the British during the Third Anglo-Afghan war of 1919, was also a talib, as were Mirwais Khan Hotaki, and Mullah Mushki Alam, who fought against the British occupation of Afghanistan. During the national struggle against the Soviet invaders, taliban fought alongside the Mujahideen mainly under the leadership of Mohammad Nabi, one of the seven sanctioned Mujahideen leaders in Pakistan (also known as "Peshawar Tanzeem" Leaders)."

"In reality, the traditional way of life in villages has changed little by Taliban's rule. The situation of Afghans in the countryside controlled by the Taliban has improved because of increased peace and security, giving them the opportunity to rebuild after two decades of war."

---> Islamic movements have their place in Afghan history BUT their role was limited by the royal houses, the tribes and the ethnic balance. The Taliban movement that came into existence in 1994 came into Afghanistan, banned Attan, Dhol, Music, basically everything that had to do with Pashtun culture and heritage and tried to impose a version of Islam that was alien to people.
In rural areas they weren´t able to confront people with their idiotic claims. My father was in Paktia during Taliban rule there several times. The Taliban couldn´t do **** because the tribes there were armed to the teeth, they couldn´t impose beards on people, they couldn´t ban cultural customs etc. and the people let them be because they didn´t want to fight their Pashtuns brothers. They could only be tough on people who they had disarmed like in Kabul or Mazar.

Their ideology is more than alien to Afghans.

3) Once again, examine the US presence in the Arabian Peninsula, The DMZ line in Korea, various Eastern Euro regions, Iraq, Germany etc. You are attempting to promote a farcical idea that Afghanistan is the exception to the rule that the US stays where its footprint was. Once country is the exception, and how has strong business ties as a business partner with the US: Vietnam.

---> America is not able to promote any culture that is superior to the people´s cultures in the countries they have occupied because America, as a settling area of the "lame and wasted" of the world doesn´t have a culture. It dominates with products, capitalism and a way of life that consists of "consuming products".
the countries that you mentioned are victims of a globalized world where the culture of consumption has taken over.
Afghanistan is a 3rd world country with no tendency to become a highway of business with 4 mile square shopping malls etc.


So in summary, you have not successfully proven at the Taliban are imposed (or even as imposed as NATO) or that the US presence is in any way benign.

Come back with proof. The Saleh line of reasoning is defunct here.

---> If the Taliban are not imposed, then why is their powerbase outside Afghanistan?
As far as I know, the Taliban do not produce the AK-47 they use, the ammo the use, the IEDs, their training facilities, their funding etc.

Homegrown insurgencies like the Vietcong had their powerbases inside South-Vietnamese territory, too. They didn´t run across the inner-Vietnamese border after attacking Americans. They had the support of the ordinary people.

The use of suicide bombers is a clear sign that the insurgency lacks sanctuaries inside Afghanistan inside the sociaty, so they resort to sending preparated fighters across the border from Pakistan.

And even if they have middle-men in Afghanistan, one or two days after the attack, those middle men get caught because they too have no root inside that sociaty.

Insurgencies are only successfull if they can operate from civilian areas where people are supportive of them. I do not see that in Afghanistan.

[randolph85]

Its due to Ikhwanism. Hizb Islami unlike many other groups who have merged into Islamit Emirates, still remains on the sam old Ikhwani ideology.

The various factions of groups belonging to Yunus Khalis, Nabi Muhammadi, Itehad, Harakati Inqilabi, Mahaz and even Hizb Islami have denounced their former groups and gave bay'ah to Amirul Momineen.

If it wasn't for the staunch Ikhwani ideology of hizb Islami they would have accepted Mullah Omar as their Amir. But unfortunately, the machiavellist mindset of Ikhwanis won't allow them to accept any other authority above their own party.

This is why Hizbiyyah is not allowed in Islam. Muslims should not cling on to a false notion of a "hizb" within the Ummah. It was the creation of Ahzab whic led to the great fitnah. Any wise man can figure that out.

if muslims should not cling on to a hezb, why should they cling onto a nation state emirate? every group is a hezb. the islamic emirate of afghanistan, tehrik i taliban pakistan, hezb i islami.

my point here is that u are opposed to this party even though it is fighting the americans. but if people are opposed to the taliban who are doing the same thing, somehow they are kaffirs. lol

[unknownprince]

Your argument is laced with fallacies:

1) The US, per former CIA writings, openly stated that its goal is to avoid Islamist governments from rising to power. In fact, it appears you were asleep at the wheel for the whole Egypt drama. The key question was, when Americans were challenged regarding their double standard for who deserves democracy if democracy results in Islamists gaining power (as the University of Maryland polling shows they likely would), they resorted to commentary about the Muslim Brotherhood that had no basis in reality. Scheuer by way of Margolis states:

http://www.facts-are-facts.com/news/...onterror.ihtml

"U.S. military operations in the Muslim world," he adds, "validate bin Laden's contention the U.S. is attacking Islam and supports any country willing to kill or persecute Muslims." Scheuer, breaking the ultimate taboo, observes of Washington's "one-way alliance" with Israel that "Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight the ropes binding the American Gulliver to the ... Jewish state and its policies." The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are lost causes, Scheuer concludes. The U.S. is totally unable to create legitimate governments in either chaotic nation, only puppet regimes, supported by American bayonets. If the U.S. stays, it will bleed endlessly; if it retreats, it faces political disaster."

2) Regarding US attempts to alter the cultural landscape of Afghanistan actively from Woodward ala Scheuer:

"–“Do you understand [asked Secretary of State Clinton] what the alternative would be if we don’t stick to this [waging the Afghan]? she asked. The gains for women will evaporate and the UN would be driven out” [p.102]
So, our soldiers and Marines are dying and being crippled in Afghanistan so Mrs. Muhammad can vote and abort, and so the UN can continue wasting U.S. taxpayer money?"

http://non-intervention.com/594/bob-...and-ignorance/

3) You have not proven that the Pashtuns of the southern Afghan basin viewed the Taliban as imposed outsiders. You contradict yourself. If the Afghans are, as you state, so capable of repelling invaders, then the Taliban would have been repelled had they been seen as foreign imposed elements. Instead the evidence is to the contrary:

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

" In 2001–02 we installed a government in Kabul headed by Karzai. In doing this, we backed one side in a long civil war—the more progressive-secular and urban camp, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, and some Pashtuns and those who live in the north and west. But it excluded one-third of Afghans, the rural, religious, traditional camp, who are Pashtuns in the south and east—which include the Taliban—whose forerunners we backed in 1980s, against the Soviets. "

I refer you to Dr. Kakar's text (an anti taliban Afghan historian) regarding how the rural Afghans functioned under the Taliban:

http://www.institute-for-afghan-stud...ntro_kakar.htm

"Although taliban have never been, until recent times, at the pinnacle of military and political power, they are not new to Afghanistan. They have been a component of the religious establishment and have always ways lived in the shadow of other military, political, and economic groups. Mullah Shor Bazar, an Afghan fighter known for inflicting heavy losses on the British during the Third Anglo-Afghan war of 1919, was also a talib, as were Mirwais Khan Hotaki, and Mullah Mushki Alam, who fought against the British occupation of Afghanistan. During the national struggle against the Soviet invaders, taliban fought alongside the Mujahideen mainly under the leadership of Mohammad Nabi, one of the seven sanctioned Mujahideen leaders in Pakistan (also known as "Peshawar Tanzeem" Leaders)."

"In reality, the traditional way of life in villages has changed little by Taliban's rule. The situation of Afghans in the countryside controlled by the Taliban has improved because of increased peace and security, giving them the opportunity to rebuild after two decades of war."

3) Once again, examine the US presence in the Arabian Peninsula, The DMZ line in Korea, various Eastern Euro regions, Iraq, Germany etc. You are attempting to promote a farcical idea that Afghanistan is the exception to the rule that the US stays where its footprint was. Once country is the exception, and how has strong business ties as a business partner with the US: Vietnam.

So in summary, you have not successfully proven at the Taliban are imposed (or even as imposed as NATO) or that the US presence is in any way benign.

Come back with proof. The Saleh line of reasoning is defunct here.

The above explains everything well.

As for those who are supporting war against the Afghan people, now you know who they are.

They bring the Pakistan card out, but they are the first that will be happy to see Pashtuns in KP and FATA get bombed by Pakistan. So, now you understand them.

You can understand that they are anti-Muslim, anti-Afghan in the national sense, and anti-Pashtun. These people also supported the Russians.

[khushal]

In rural areas they weren´t able to confront people with their idiotic claims. My father was in Paktia during Taliban rule there several times. The Taliban couldn´t do **** because the tribes there were armed to the teeth, they couldn´t impose beards on people, they couldn´t ban cultural customs etc. and the people let them be because they didn´t want to fight their Pashtuns brothers. They could only be tough on people who they had disarmed like in Kabul or Mazar.

Their ideology is more than alien to Afghans.

Actually the Talibans Vice and Virtue Squad was based on Saudis vice and virtue squad which were on beard and prayer patrols and they only operated in the cities, and not in the country side. They administered the country side according to the ways of the locals. But you are wrong about them being powerless in the country side. They eradicated the production of opium which was mainly in the country side and they handled disputes between people in an uncorrupted fashion unlike the Afghan government of today, the latter was the main reason the locals welcomed them and is the main reason the Afghan government is failing. In addition they unarmed the local warlords and drug lords.

The ideology of being ruled by warlords and drug lords and have night raids done by foreign forces just to name a few. Afghans watching Indian, Pakistani, Bengladeshi, and other southeast Asian workers coming in to their country and seeing them pillage their land is alien to Afghan culture. Why are there so many foreign workers in Afghanistan, why are they not employing the local workers.
Mostafa, there is more to this than meets the eye otherwise it would not be Americas longest war.

---> If the Taliban are not imposed, then why is their powerbase outside Afghanistan?
As far as I know, the Taliban do not produce the AK-47 they use, the ammo the use, the IEDs, their training facilities, their funding etc.
Homegrown insurgencies like the Vietcong had their powerbases inside South-Vietnamese territory, too. They didn´t run across the inner-Vietnamese border after attacking Americans. They had the support of the ordinary people.

The Vietcong was compromised of guerilla and regular army units. They had other assets such as a network of cadres who organized peasants and villagers in the territory it influenced. Many soldiers were recruited in South Vietnam, but others were attached to the the North Vietnamese army(peoples army of Vietnam). During the war, communists insisted the Vietcong was an insurgency indigenous to the South. The U.S. and the South Vietnamese government portrayed the group as a tool of North Vietnam. Northerners and southerners were always under the same command structure. The Vietcong also had bases in Cambodia and Laos(which forced the US to do secrete heavy bombing of Cambodia and Laos).

http://www.yale.edu/cgp/Walrus_CambodiaBombing_OCT06.pdf

The use of suicide bombers is a clear sign that the insurgency lacks sanctuaries inside Afghanistan inside the sociaty, so they resort to sending preparated fighters across the border from Pakistan.

Suicide bombing is not new. It is almost as old as the invention of the explosive devise itself. It is used because it is perceived as effective. Since we are on the subject of The Vietnam War, they also utilized Suicide bombings.
The U.S. Army Professional Writing Collection
Later, suicide bombings took place in the Vietnam War. The Viet Cong utilized sappers (demolition commandos) who would carry or wear satchel charges. These individuals would purposefully blow themselves up to destroy U.S. and Republic of Vietnam equipment and fortifications.


Read the whole article it will talk about suicide attacks being used in the 13th century by the mongols but it is older than that.

And even if they have middle-men in Afghanistan, one or two days after the attack, those middle men get caught because they too have no root inside that sociaty.

According to reports Im reading the US is begging the Taliban for a negotiated settlement, they have very little leverage over them.

Insurgencies are only successfull if they can operate from civilian areas where people are supportive of them. I do not see that in Afghanistan.

This insurgency is ten years old, Americas longest "successful" war.