What annoyed Obama about Mullah Omar

[MostafaM]

umm, except Najib and KHAD supported the Russian occupation of Afghanistan--- there is no frikin comparison you moron.

Not really, Ashraf-Ghall!

You can play the monkey again but I would suggest you read Brzezsinski (National Security Adviser to President Carter) books and interviews:

"...INT: How did you interpret Soviet behavior in Afghanistan, such as the April revolution, the rise of... I mean, what did you think their long-term plans were, and what did you think should be done about it?


ZB: I told the President, about six months before the Soviets entered Afghanistan, that in my judgment I thought they would be going into Afghanistan. And I decided then, and I recommended to the President, that we shouldn't be passive.


INT: What happened?


ZB: We weren't passive...."

Source:
INTERVIEW WITH DR ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI-(13/6/97)


"...1) Brzezinski now admits that the US started funding the mujahadeen a full six months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (the previous justification for funding the mujahadeen was that it was to stop the Soviets AFTER they had invaded Afghanistan);

2) The explicit purpose of funding the mujahadeen was to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan so that they would get bogged down in a long, unwinnable war -- "their Vietnam";


3) Brzezinski believes that funding the mujahadeen -- even at the price of unleashing Islamic fundamentalism ("some stirred-up Moslems") as a force throughout the Middle East and Central Asia -- was well worth the price of defeating the Soviet Union. Of course, he said all this a full three years before the World Trade Center attack."

Source:How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen


‪Brzezinski and the Afghan War Pt2‬‏ - YouTube


IF YOU ARE TOO STUPID IN GENERAL TO GRASP AN ADMITTION OF US OFFICIALS THAT THEY TRAPPED THE USSR IN AFGHANISTAN TO FIGHT THEM IN A PROXY WAR WITH YOUR BLOOD, then you would be excused.
But you are not that stupid. (You are stupid but not THAT stupid.)
You just lack ghairat and nang.

Every Tom&Di_ck can come and make you fight his war for him. And after you have fallen on the battlefield, he sells your women on the markets of Karachi and Lahore.
That´s what you are!

[unknownprince]

No , it is people like you who let your women get raped and abused. Thats people like you. Just look at Najib.

Why do the Taliban have support in Afghanistan?

[unknownprince]

What annoyed Obama about Mullah Omar

What annoyed Obama about Mullah Omar - Indian Punchline


By M K Bhadrakumar – July 31, 2011




What really prompted US president Barack Obama to change his mind and to allow himself at the last minute to be persuaded by his military commanders to opt for the ’surge’ in Afghanistan in end-2009 is crucial to understanding the current status of the war and its likely future trajectory. Among Obama’s inner circle, Vice-president Joe Biden was reportedly pitching against the ’surge’ at that time. The former Afghan PM Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai has now revealed what prompted the US ’surge’. ASA is a credible source, having been close to Burhanuddin Rabbani, Rasul Sayyaf in the Mujahideen government (where he served as PM along with Ahmed Shah Massoud as Defence Minister before fleeing for Turkey where he lived in exile during the Taliban regime.)
That ASA was the intermediary between the Americans and the Taliban in 2009 shows the wheels-within-wheels, as it were. (ASA did his graduate studies in the US; he lived in exile in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.) According to ASA, the main sticking point between the US and Taliban in the 2009 talks was that Mullah Omar was stubbornly opposed to the US request to allow permanent military bases in Afghanistan in a post-settlement era. Taliban was willing to compromise on other issues but when it came to the US bases, Omar was tough as nail. He apparently took the stance that “not one metre” of Afghan soil could come under foreign occupation. Interestingly, Omar was willing to negotiate the date of US withdrawal from Afghanistan and was prepared to be flexible on the actual date of withdrawal, but the US troops simply had to vacate at some point.
What emerges is that the Pentagon top brass decided to bleed the Taliban for its ‘obduracy’ apropos the US military bases, based on a strategy to weaken them and somehow compel them to compromise on the question of the permanent US military bases. Thus was born the ’surge’ strategy — make one big push to degrade the Taliban militarily before negotiating. So, looking back, when the Anglo-American thesis of the ‘good Taliban-bad-Taliban’ was shoved down the throat of countries like India at the the London conference in January 2010, Richard Holbrooke and Hillary Clinton indeed had a wholesome game plan. Alas, Indian diplomacy has been naive and continued to be enthusiastic about the ’surge’.
It stands to reason that there was some major intelligence failure and Delhi had no clue to what was really going on. Maybe it isn’t late even today for someone to talk with interlocutors like ASA and try to piece it all together. Unless we know reliably well what transpired between the US and the Taliban, how would we comprehend what is going to unfold in the coming period? Unsurprisingly, the US continues to keep us ‘briefed’ selectively on a need-to-know basis. Special Representative Marc Grossman visited Delhi just once. He is setting out again on a regional tour that will take him to Pakistan and the Central Asian region (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan). India remains a bystander. All this happened primarily because our diplomats chose to work as the ‘B Team’ of the American embassy in Kabul through the past decade since the ouster of the Taliban regime in 2001 and we didn’t diversify our contacts with the Afghan political elites and other regional powers.


Posted in Military, Politics.
Tagged with Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, Marc Grossman, Richard Holbrooke, Taliban, US 'surge' in Afghanistan.
By M K Bhadrakumar – July 31, 2011

bump

[unknownprince]

that Mullah Omar was stubbornly opposed to the US request to allow permanent military bases in Afghanistan in a post-settlement era. Taliban was willing to compromise on other issues but when it came to the US bases, Omar was tough as nail. He apparently took the stance that “not one metre” of Afghan soil could come under foreign occupation.

[MostafaM]

No , it is people like you who let your women get raped and abused. Thats people like you. Just look at Najib.

Why do the Taliban have support in Afghanistan?

Even your ISI-friends aka "Paki Pathans" made fun of fools like you and expressed very clearly how Afghan women are treated by them.....

If mordas like you take OBL and his Camel Sabre Rider Gang over their people´s honour and let their country get invaded by the modern-time Mongols (US), then your namoos and nang are a serious point of debate.....

Don´t you agree?



Seems like the support is not sufficient.
Otherwise mordas wouldn´t agree to peace talks.

[MostafaM]

You didn´t tackle Mr. Brzezinski and how he fed you to become what you are.....a puppy on almost everyone´s lap.

I know that must burn if you have to acknowledge that you were used like toilette paper for the last 30 years......outch!

[unknownprince]

You must be retarded. Afghans will fight whoever tries to bully them.

Afghans will never tolerate a foreign occupation.

It matters not who supports them, and who shares their interest.

They only care about the freedom of their country.

WHo said the Taliban are talking to the Americans? LOL, how retarded do you have to be to believe that ****. Why would winners talk to losers?

[unknownprince]

You didn´t tackle Mr. Brzezinski and how he fed you to become what you are.....a puppy on almost everyone´s lap.

I know that must burn if you have to acknowledge that you were used like toilette paper for the last 30 years......outch!

Mr Bresinski. even if the US had not supported the Afghans against the Soviets, the Afghans would still have fought you idiot.

How moronic are you?

When has anyone not fought those who tried to rule them?

You still have not explained to me why the Taliban have considerable support in Afghanistan.

And no, the Taliban are not speaking to the Americans because there is nothing to speak about.

[unknownprince]

What annoyed Obama about Mullah Omar

What annoyed Obama about Mullah Omar - Indian Punchline


By M K Bhadrakumar – July 31, 2011




What really prompted US president Barack Obama to change his mind and to allow himself at the last minute to be persuaded by his military commanders to opt for the ’surge’ in Afghanistan in end-2009 is crucial to understanding the current status of the war and its likely future trajectory. Among Obama’s inner circle, Vice-president Joe Biden was reportedly pitching against the ’surge’ at that time. The former Afghan PM Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai has now revealed what prompted the US ’surge’. ASA is a credible source, having been close to Burhanuddin Rabbani, Rasul Sayyaf in the Mujahideen government (where he served as PM along with Ahmed Shah Massoud as Defence Minister before fleeing for Turkey where he lived in exile during the Taliban regime.)
That ASA was the intermediary between the Americans and the Taliban in 2009 shows the wheels-within-wheels, as it were. (ASA did his graduate studies in the US; he lived in exile in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.) According to ASA, the main sticking point between the US and Taliban in the 2009 talks was that Mullah Omar was stubbornly opposed to the US request to allow permanent military bases in Afghanistan in a post-settlement era. Taliban was willing to compromise on other issues but when it came to the US bases, Omar was tough as nail. He apparently took the stance that “not one metre” of Afghan soil could come under foreign occupation. Interestingly, Omar was willing to negotiate the date of US withdrawal from Afghanistan and was prepared to be flexible on the actual date of withdrawal, but the US troops simply had to vacate at some point.
What emerges is that the Pentagon top brass decided to bleed the Taliban for its ‘obduracy’ apropos the US military bases, based on a strategy to weaken them and somehow compel them to compromise on the question of the permanent US military bases. Thus was born the ’surge’ strategy — make one big push to degrade the Taliban militarily before negotiating. So, looking back, when the Anglo-American thesis of the ‘good Taliban-bad-Taliban’ was shoved down the throat of countries like India at the the London conference in January 2010, Richard Holbrooke and Hillary Clinton indeed had a wholesome game plan. Alas, Indian diplomacy has been naive and continued to be enthusiastic about the ’surge’.
It stands to reason that there was some major intelligence failure and Delhi had no clue to what was really going on. Maybe it isn’t late even today for someone to talk with interlocutors like ASA and try to piece it all together. Unless we know reliably well what transpired between the US and the Taliban, how would we comprehend what is going to unfold in the coming period? Unsurprisingly, the US continues to keep us ‘briefed’ selectively on a need-to-know basis. Special Representative Marc Grossman visited Delhi just once. He is setting out again on a regional tour that will take him to Pakistan and the Central Asian region (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan). India remains a bystander. All this happened primarily because our diplomats chose to work as the ‘B Team’ of the American embassy in Kabul through the past decade since the ouster of the Taliban regime in 2001 and we didn’t diversify our contacts with the Afghan political elites and other regional powers.


Posted in Military, Politics.
Tagged with Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, Marc Grossman, Richard Holbrooke, Taliban, US 'surge' in Afghanistan.
By M K Bhadrakumar – July 31, 2011

READ bump

[unknownprince]

that Mullah Omar was stubbornly opposed to the US request to allow permanent military bases in Afghanistan in a post-settlement era. Taliban was willing to compromise on other issues but when it came to the US bases, Omar was tough as nail. He apparently took the stance that “not one metre” of Afghan soil could come under foreign occupation.

bump read read

[AFG21]

Mujahidin where created by America to make USSR weak, those mujhahidin are now in the parlement, Taliban are a difrent group that where in the begining together whith the Mujhahidin but they wanted a strikt Sharia law. But becuase the majority of mujhahidin where pedofiles who loved littel boys and money, they refused to create a strict Sharia based goverment. The taliban whith the majority of pashtuns took power, that is not so dificult if you realise that fiscicaly we pashtuns are taler and stronger than those tajiks hazaras and uzbeks. But among the Taliban, only 60 procent is Afghan and 40 procent is foreign, so they let peopel like Osama in, and that was a big mistake, instead of doing something for the country, LIKE REBUILDING IT, they just trained fighters. And let Osama plan the 9/11. If Taliban where smart they would first think about there country men and help to rebuild the country. But because the majority was iliterate they only cared about power and sharia. So Afghanistan became a miedievel society. There was stability but not a normal live. By normal live, I mean houses, clean drinking water, healtcare. So actualy it is there own fault that there is now NATO and America in Afghanistan. And if taliban will come to power, they again will implement strikt Sharia Laws, that can be not a big problem if they listen to good Islamic scholars and don't stop the economy from growing and don't stop women from going to school. But if they do the same things like in the past, Afghanistan will become worser that Somalie.

Sorry for my mistakes, I was writing really fast and I don't leave in a English speaking country.

[khushal]

^^^^^
What Mostafa is saying is that The Americans tricked the USSR into invading Afghanistan so the Soviets can bleed. Osama learning from the Americans did the same tricking the Americans to invade Afghanistan so the Americans can bleed.
But you are right the Taliban didnt know anything but their own version of an utopia. But they were a reaction to the pedophilic warlords(majahadeen is a wrong term to be used for them) that couldnt come together to form some sort of a functioning government. Those pedophilic warlords are in power today and again some sort of reaction is coming from the population.

[unknownprince]

^^^^^
What Mostafa is saying is that The Americans tricked the USSR into invading Afghanistan so the Soviets can bleed. Osama learning from the Americans did the same tricking the Americans to invade Afghanistan so the Americans can bleed.
But you are right the Taliban didnt know anything but their own version of an utopia. But they were a reaction to the pedophilic warlords(majahadeen is a wrong term to be used for them) that couldnt come together to form some sort of a functioning government. Those pedophilic warlords are in power today and again some sort of reaction is coming from the population.

you manage to put forward words as factually as possible.

Well said.

[MostafaM]

^^^^^
What Mostafa is saying is that The Americans tricked the USSR into invading Afghanistan so the Soviets can bleed. Osama learning from the Americans did the same tricking the Americans to invade Afghanistan so the Americans can bleed.
But you are right the Taliban didnt know anything but their own version of an utopia. But they were a reaction to the pedophilic warlords(majahadeen is a wrong term to be used for them) that couldnt come together to form some sort of a functioning government. Those pedophilic warlords are in power today and again some sort of reaction is coming from the population.

The first part I can agree upon.

The second part is tricky.
I strongly believe that a religious movement who has even it´s spiritual base (the Deobandi madrassas on the Indian subcontinent) with absolutly no link to the sociaty whatsoever cannot rule a diverse country with the help of a foreign hand.

This whole Ahmd Ghallgay arguementation is rotten to the core.

Afghanistan should be ruled by the common people and not by foreign imposed warlords or Madrassa students.

These two groups are proxy armies that keep Afghan sociaty advancing towards a civil future where ordinary people aren´t ruled by anyone else but the people they have elected and who act in their interests.

Resisting alone is not sufficient.
Patriotism alone is not sufficient.
Religion alone is not sufficient.
Ideology alone is not sufficient.

Only if Afghans start to realize that so far and on both sides they have fought for other people´s deeper strategic interests and not for Islam, independence or end of occupation, they will lay down the weapons to come together.
But one needs courage and intelligence to realise, understand and admit one´s failures and misguided behaviour in the past.

And as we see, donkeys like AshrafGhallgay make up a large block of the Afghan mindset.

So, bleed, die and let your honour be sold on slave markets across the Middle East.

[khushal]

^^^^^
In Afghanistan the bulk of the Afghan mindset is independent and against foreign aggression. To the average Afghan(when I say the average afghan I mean rural Afghanistan since 90% of the population is rural, most of the Afghans on this forum are city folk)The Taliban are not seen as foreign aggressors but Pashtuns. Anyone openly taking orders from foreigners like the ANA will not be respected by the locals. The foreigners don't respect Afghan values, why would the afghans respect them or anyone taking their orders.

The Average Afghan is seeing this:
This man giving orders


to these men


And this is what the average Afghan is seeing as a result



Now the Average Afghan wants this connection broken so they are going to back any force good or bad that will attempt to break it up. Once this connection is broken, the society will sort itself out and jump to the next step of some sort of functionality.

Judging from your posts you are under the impression that the Taliban are far more dangerous to the Afghan society than NATO, but the average Afghan disagrees with you, why is this. If you look at other societies, for example the chinese. Mao has a shrine in China and is respected and I think will be respected for nudreds of years even though he killed more Chinese than the British and Japanese imperialists combined. Look at America's Abraham Lincoln, he killed more Americans than all the wars that America has been involved in combined, there is a huge memorial for him in Washington DC and is one the most respected presidents in United States history. Stalin, who wasn't even Russian, is more respected in Russia's history than actual Russians and he killed more Russians than Hitler did. Is this logical, the people think it is.