Mullah Omar gets a Russian visitor

[randolph85]

and the nato thing. he is lying before Allah. he knows we dont support nato but it blows his mind that we dont also support the taliban. when ur entire world is black and white i guess u seem to see things as a retard would. he is the equivalent of some redneck faggot who supports the troops.

think before u post, ashraf, if u fear Allah.

[unknownprince]

you attribute stability to them. You said they should not just withdraw because then there will be civil war. You are the liar.

This is called support, but maybe since you are an Uncle Tom, you feel differently.

This is the Uncle Tom argument you have spun here.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Lets redo introductions here:
Randolph, meet Ashraf, he is passionate about an Afghanistan free of Western imperialism. His belief is that the Taliban represent an indigenous movement of some sort that more closely approximates the will of the rural masses. Ashraf would, in my estimation be much more content if the Taliban were exact duplicates of the sahaba, but alas, he knows that they fall far from reproducing that era. However, he believes that Afghans can generally handle their own and eventually solve their own problems and believes that it is healthier for them to do so to develop as a nation, by and for themselves. Ashraf becomes upset with the subject is distracted with accusations of Pakicentric policy maneuvers by the Taliban that should be discussed and viewed through a more complex prism.

I believe Ashraf's sincerity came out when he hoped (and we disagreed) that Mr. Karzai had reached a point of independence.

Ashraf, meet Randolph... Randolph is an Islamic purist. Because he grew up in the US in a non NYC enclave type situation Randolph believes that the best fit to lead Afghanistan is just that... the best fit to lead irrespective of race or creed. Randolph appears to prefer a collapse of the imposed order and agrees that imperialism, alongside of the Muslim self delivered blows of betrayal/greed/depature from adherence to the Quranic text is what has brought us to this point. He also wants the US to leave. He appears to, at times, grudgingly agree that the Taliban is more intrinsice to the environment of Afghanistan, and he hopes that the occupier force leaves... but he does not want Afghanistan to regress into its unislamic chaos.

Where Randolph disagrees with Ashraf is where that demarcation of unislamic chaos is includes the Taliban period of rule.

Where Ashraf disagrees with Randolph is that he views the Taliban more legitimate of the will of the rural masses irrespective of their adherence to strict shariah or not... but he still feels they were closer to an observance of it than Mr. Karzai or the secular democratic occupier forces.

Both of you want them out... just with different outcomes of who implements what ends up being the same thing...

Ashraf does not want women being beat with heavy sticks and rocks... and Randolph does not want women dancing bangra in Kabul's streets either.

Shall we do a solah?

[randolph85]

this is why i have great respect for barakzai despite our different views on the current situation.

we both want the same thing but see different avenues to get there.

[unknownprince]

thats it. We want the same thing.

Saying Afghans fight for Pakistan is getting very ridiculous. People fight for themselves. Afghans fight for Afghans. Vietnamese fought for themselves, not China. Iraqis fought for themselves in Gulf War 2, not for Iran or Saudi Arabia (2 nations supporting different Iraqi resistance groups- Sunni, Shiite).

There is no room for debate about this. It is in fact offensive and akin to supporting the US war against Afghanistan because this is the exact lie that Saleh touts to Petraeus which he touts to Clinton, and so on and so forth. They know it is a lie, but they wanted to disguise the truth that they were fighting against Afghans.

The only people who promote this lie usually support the US war against Afghanistan. Take a moment and think. you think a rural Afghan who is fighting to free Afghanistan is, during battle, going to turn to his friend, and ask "Are you, we, fighting for Pakistan?" The very suggestion of this LIE is an insult and affront to Afghanistan character and history, both which are intolerant to foreign aggression.

A comedian like Jon Stewart knows that Afghans fight all invaders. It is not news.

Dr. Schuer knows this. MK Bhadrakumar knows this. Juan Cole knows this.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Good, I am glad to see you both are understanding that you want the same thing. Remember, your opposition is united and marches together, lock, stock, and barrell. Unity equals success.

Now, we can engage on very interesting discussions that will give us all the chance to learn... for instance, Randolph could raise the point that Islamist Godfather and mentor to a generation of Pan Islamists, Abdullah Azzam, preferred Ahmad Shah Mossoud to lead the Afghan nation... his colleagues disagreed. Ashraf could answer with a discussion about what the practical implications would have been, had such a nonethnic approach to Afghanistan been pursued. He might say that it was Quixotic and would have resulted in an insurgency against Mossoud in the manner of Bacha Saqo. Therefore, a Pashtun dominated government would, perhaps in Ashraf's mind, provide Afghanistan with the most stability in the interim.

When Pakistan is brought up, bring forth the particulars... discuss Zia and his history... discuss the historical record between Afghanistan and Pakistan and whether each country has realistic concerns about the other.

Then, discuss an approach to how an indepenndent Afghanistan might deliver an independent Pakistan.

[unknownprince]

Ahmad Shah Masood was against foreigners, and would not tolerate such acts like Saleh. Salehs treachery is also the reason why he has not much of a following and is as much as a joke as karzai and spanta.Fortunately, this is good because his ethnocentric ranting falls on death ears.

The fact is he should have mediated with the Taliban and come to an understanding of why they had started to exist. It was due the infighting which his fighters were a part of as well as others. They were the reaction to the crimes and murders committed. Thats what people fail to understand. These people had only known war. Uninterrupted, they will proceed and move forward as Iran has. The difference will be Afghanistan will be a Sharia Sunni Islamic state.

Now, thats a start.

Afghanistan needs all the rights of an independent state, a strong army, and an air defense (a must) to prevent aggressors from ever threatening the nation again.

This last part is the single most important issue for Afghanistan.

[randolph85]

ahmad shah massoud was seemingly against physical occupation of afghanistan but was not above asking for foreign help to meet his goals. i guess its no different than the taliban, where as the taliban try to hide their need for foreign aid, massoud had no shame and announced it.

afghanistan, in the event of a full withdrawal needs more political unity than military power. in the history of modern afghanistan, its never been the national military that has defended the land in times of invasion. its always been irregular fighters. unless there is some semblance of political unity in a post occupied afghanistan, a national army no matter how large will be useless. we have seen examples such as saddams and ghaddafis armies crumbling because they had little to no loyalty to the institution. the fact that afghanistan has always been invaded is a sign of weakness to begin with. unless the a country is piss poor weak, there is conventional war to defend the country before it is physically occupied. guerilla war is the last resort after a government and its military crumbles.

if there is a united political entity ruling from kabul in an independent afghanistan, the country would be better off following the iranian example. the example being creating an indigenous military industry while depending far less on foreign weaponry. though that is unlikely as iran is just doing the bare minimum to keep up despite having 10s of billions of dollars in oil revenue a year while afghanistan has less than a billion a year in revenue. that means things like air defense is out of the question unless of course its donated by a foreign power which of course there are always strings attached.

[abassinafghan]

say what ????

ahmad shah massoud was the slickest and uglyest of all those immigrants , he should have been hanged a long time ago .

he took support from the french ,russians even during the 80s , and the americans . not to forget isi . he was the most anti pashtun ever.

this ******* even made a truce with the russians, he let them pass by and just targeted afghan soldiers .

i prefer every single taliban instead of him . if they didnt killed him , he would be now prime minister .

rabbani , dostum , abdullah abdullah , and fahim are big supporters but he would not be , if he were a live `????? redicouluse .

next time i visit panjer inshallah i gonna ,**** on his grave -

[unknownprince]

Randolph,

Actually, Taliban have never denied getting support from any people or nation. according to the interviews they have done in documentaries (France 24), they get support from all over. In fact, even go so far as to request support from the world. So what? Why is the US supported by 48 nations? Why is the Kabul group of expats supported by the US and NATO? Its called common interests. The Kabul group of expats want the US to support them so they can steal from Afghanistan.

Regional countries as well as Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia support the Taliban because they want the US out. Its called common interests. Its politics, nothing else.

Why don't you question the numerous rich Gulf Sunni states which fund them? Why are you fixated on Pakistan? Why only Pakistan (which by the way in fact) supports the US war.

Masood was pretty slick about his support. He in fact never admitted anything publicly like you are suggesting.

[randolph85]

Randolph,

Actually, Taliban have never denied getting support from any people or nation. according to the interviews they have done in documentaries (France 24), they get support from all over. In fact, even go so far as to request support from the world. So what? Why is the US supported by 48 nations? Why is the Kabul group of expats supported by the US and NATO? Its called common interests. The Kabul group of expats want the US to support them so they can steal from Afghanistan.

Regional countries as well as Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia support the Taliban because they want the US out. Its called common interests. Its politics, nothing else.

Why don't you question the numerous rich Gulf Sunni states which fund them? Why are you fixated on Pakistan? Why only Pakistan (which by the way in fact) supports the US war.

Masood was pretty slick about his support. He in fact never admitted anything publicly like you are suggesting.

the taliban have denied support from pakistan several times. its the same as when massoud denied russian support. both being plain as day but each group denying support to save face. pakistan even denied giving shelter to the mujahadin in the 80s when it was completely obvious. its like when israel doesn't comment that it has nukes but the world knows its true.

no gulf state supports the taliban today, there are gulf donors but no official gulf state support. why would they? they are rich kingdoms who are close to america, they are not going to risk this relationship on a country which has no value to them.

the difference between pakistan and gulf states is that pakistan seeks direct influence in afghanistan whereas the states that used to support the taliban in the 90s did so out of ideology, not political leverage. pakistan supports the taliban, not because of their ideology but because of their anti nationalist leaning. if we look at pakistan, its the secular folk who are the outwardly pashtun nationalists not the pashtun islamist taliban. its not the ttp that posted those large pashtunistan billboards in kp and balochistan, it was the nationalist party.

its the difference between russia supporting the communist regime in afghanistan, and cuba or some other far away small country also supporting it. russia does it for direct control while the far away smaller nations did it out of solidarity and/or ideology.

financial help comes with strings attached, always. no one gives millions or billions or dollars and expects nothing in return.

[unknownprince]

[QUOTE]

the taliban have denied support from pakistan several times.

ACTUALLY, they condemn Pakistan for supporting the US war, and have tole them to desist from it. TTP also attacks Pakistan in case you did not know.

. They just say many Muslims help them. They in fact even ask for more help. Why does anyone have to talk about who supports them? Isn't it a non-issue? Did/does a foreign army back the Taliban government in Afghanistan as the US Army is propping up what you call the Kabul gov?

its the same as when massoud denied russian support. both being plain as day but each group denying support to save face. pakistan even denied giving shelter to the mujahadin in the 80s when it was completely obvious.

Oh, please. Save face? From what? They have condemned Pakistan for supporting the US war against Afghanistan. They also have made it clear that people like Saleh are stooges of the US, and that is plain and clear as night and day.

. To them it doesn't matter who supports them. In fact, they continuously say the whole Muslim world should, and Have condemned Pakistan for supporting the US war against Afghanistan. You are desperately again trying to deny the Afghan resistance.

its like when israel doesn't comment that it has nukes but the world knows its true.

But what is the point for Israel to say they have nukes, to prove what? So, why should the Taliban disclose which nations.groups support them? For what? For ****s and giggles?

no gulf state supports the taliban today,

Give Sources please, and the apparent intel access you have. Why should any Gulf government say what they do? Who made it law that you have to declare such and such expenditure? Lets say the support the Dalai Lama to break up China, they can keep it a secret you know? There are many Saudi Princes who fund the Taliban as well as Qatari elite. They do not have to blow their horn, and announce that they are doing this and that- that they are supporting the Taliban or the Dalai Lama.

there are gulf donors but no official gulf state support.

Since when has support for a resistance ever been official? What would be the need to openly declare: We are supporting such and such?

why would they? they are rich kingdoms who are close to america, they are not going to risk this relationship on a country which has no value to them.

Who are you talking about? They do not need America. America needs them. You talk as if America has the OIL wells in California or Alaska?

the difference between pakistan and gulf states is that pakistan seeks direct influence in afghanistan whereas the states that used to support the taliban in the 90s did so out of ideology, not political leverage

this does not make any sense. So Pakistan seeks direct influence, but the Gulf states do not? Care to explain the difference between support for ideology and political leverage? Your playing with words. The Taliban heed no one otherwise they would have given OBL up like Pakistan told them to, but instead asked the US to take the matter to trial. Its getting old, retalking this absurd and pathetic line. Afghans fight for Afghans, always have, and always will.

Again here you go trying to deny the legitimacy of the Afghan resistance, and therefore continue to beat a dead horse. .

pakistan supports the taliban, not because of their ideology but because of their anti nationalist leaning.

Please show me evidence indicating that Pakistan supports the Taliban. i want to see your sources. It is understood by me that certain Islamist elements indeed do, BUT i want to see your sources. In regards to nationalism, what type of nationalist supports war on their own people? You call Spanta a nationalist or Karzai simply because they say they do not recognize the Durrand line while supporting the US war? Taliban also do not accept Durrand line FYI, thereby making them as much nationalistic as those other clowns who in fact are mere opportunists (supporting war on their fellow nationals).

if we look at pakistan, its the secular folk who are the outwardly pashtun nationalists

Nationalists? Unless we were to define nationalism as supporting war on your own country, those so-called Pashtun nationalists you speak of are one big JOKE.

not the pashtun islamist taliban. its not the ttp that posted those large pashtunistan billboards in kp and balochistan, it was the nationalist party.

It was also the so-called Pashtun nationalists party that supported the Soviet war against their Pashtun brethren across the line, and today support the US war against their Pashtun brethren across the line. They also support US drone attacks. You call this nationalism? Who cares about their flimsy billboards? These are no nationalists, but an insult to the very term.

its the difference between russia supporting the communist regime in afghanistan, and cuba or some other far away small country also supporting it. russia does it for direct control while the far away smaller nations did it out of solidarity and/or ideology.

No, you are clearly trying to make a difference where none exists. Gulf states like any other nation who has interests in seeing the US defeat in Afghanistan will support and finance the Taliban for their own interests. They are not going to have a press conference and state this. Does not mean they do not support them. In fact, who knows which other countries support them?

financial help comes with strings attached, always. no one gives millions or billions or dollars and expects nothing in return.

Thats what you think. Vietnam is no proxy of anyone today.