Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar was killed two years ago

[randolph85]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it2236z0BFc

[ComradePashtun]

Yes that idiot could not run a dusty sweet shop let alone leading tens of thousands of Talibs and their campaign.

Col iman was the god father of Talibs.

Col Imam was killed by TTP not Afg Talibs.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Yes that idiot could not run a dusty sweet shop let alone leading tens of thousands of Talibs and their campaign.

Col iman was the god father of Talibs.

Col Imam was killed by TTP not Afg Talibs.

Based on my discussions with Hekmet Karzai, he would disagree. This is the reason he took on Abdul Salaam Zaeef as a partner in writing many articles regarding the peace process. If such were the case, why would young Hekmat take on Zaeef whose Biography paints Omar, based on first handed witness experience, as a few things

1) Derived from a simple, rustic farming family
2) Very dedicated in the face of war, to the point of being injured
3) Being rewarded by Yunus Khalis for his valor?
4) Being agreed upon by the Shura as their leader after his Sangisar boys' well documented action against vicious folks like Esmat Muslim (a very very very deranged drunkard who murdered lots and lots and lots of innocent Afghans) and the somehow now communist cum democrat Ulomi?

5) He studied under Pesanai, the ulema of Kandahar, as a young student

This does not qualify him obviously to take on the title "Commander of the Faithful" - but one should also not undestimate anyone, whether it be Saddam Hossein, Qaddafi, Mullah Omar, Karzai, etc and not investigate in earnest the traits and circumstances that bought these men to power.

Additionally, the problem with the TTP argument is that the "buddies" of the Kabul plutocracy across the durand line, ANP, insists that their nation's Taliban are also ISI or Panjabies in turbans and vests (or whatever propaganda permits the mass murder of Pashtuns)... So which is it? Are the Wazir and Mahsud Talibs the real deal or are they also ISI?

Additionally, what makes Karzai or Ghani "fit to lead" a nation? A vote under massive scrutiny and question? A few characteristics of honest leaders that build nations (e.g. Washington, Mandela, etc) are that they:

1) Suffer alongside their men in the field of war
2) They do not insist on dependency and nepotism

Neither of these men have demonstrated these traits. I have always said that these technocrats in Kabul cry and wail about "Mujahidin criminals" but they themselves were nowhere to be found when their nation needed defending from Russkey invasions. In the least, the ethical thing to do would be to admit that those that bleed for the soil are the ones that earn it. If elites run away to Rome and to Italy and to America, then perhaps they ought to first admit that they (we?) abandoned Afghanistan and really have to be quiet a bit ashamed and a bit hesistant to dole out advice to people we view as "ignorant/backwards/uneducated" when these same people did the heavy lifting.

Leaders lead from the front my friend. If they don't they should not be surprised when the Darwinistic processes of war bring about a new order that doesnt discuss G8 or G16 or NATO centric world politics and economics.

[Al-Afghani]

Based on my discussions with Hekmet Karzai, he would disagree. This is the reason he took on Abdul Salaam Zaeef as a partner in writing many articles regarding the peace process. If such were the case, why would young Hekmat take on Zaeef whose Biography paints Omar, based on first handed witness experience, as a few things

1) Derived from a simple, rustic farming family
2) Very dedicated in the face of war, to the point of being injured
3) Being rewarded by Yunus Khalis for his valor?
4) Being agreed upon by the Shura as their leader after his Sangisar boys' well documented action against vicious folks like Esmat Muslim (a very very very deranged drunkard who murdered lots and lots and lots of innocent Afghans) and the somehow now communist cum democrat Ulomi?

5) He studied under Pesanai, the ulema of Kandahar, as a young student

This does not qualify him obviously to take on the title "Commander of the Faithful" - but one should also not undestimate anyone, whether it be Saddam Hossein, Qaddafi, Mullah Omar, Karzai, etc and not investigate in earnest the traits and circumstances that bought these men to power.

Additionally, the problem with the TTP argument is that the "buddies" of the Kabul plutocracy across the durand line, ANP, insists that their nation's Taliban are also ISI or Panjabies in turbans and vests (or whatever propaganda permits the mass murder of Pashtuns)... So which is it? Are the Wazir and Mahsud Talibs the real deal or are they also ISI?

Additionally, what makes Karzai or Ghani "fit to lead" a nation? A vote under massive scrutiny and question? A few characteristics of honest leaders that build nations (e.g. Washington, Mandela, etc) are that they:

1) Suffer alongside their men in the field of war
2) They do not insist on dependency and nepotism

Neither of these men have demonstrated these traits. I have always said that these technocrats in Kabul cry and wail about "Mujahidin criminals" but they themselves were nowhere to be found when their nation needed defending from Russkey invasions. In the least, the ethical thing to do would be to admit that those that bleed for the soil are the ones that earn it. If elites run away to Rome and to Italy and to America, then perhaps they ought to first admit that they (we?) abandoned Afghanistan and really have to be quiet a bit ashamed and a bit hesistant to dole out advice to people we view as "ignorant/backwards/uneducated" when these same people did the heavy lifting.

Leaders lead from the front my friend. If they don't they should not be surprised when the Darwinistic processes of war bring about a new order that doesnt discuss G8 or G16 or NATO centric world politics and economics.

Mullah Omar (and the rest of the Taliban leadership) ran off to Pakistan when America invaded, so in a way he is similar to Karzai and Ghani.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

Omar wasnt the justification for the invasion, OBL was.

But occupation was definitely about the Taliban.

[khushal]

But occupation was definitely about the Taliban.

The purpose of occupation was to prevent sanctuaries to movements that wanted to over throw dictatorial regimes that kept the hegemonic order in place.

Your hypothetical hypothesis about the US strategically planned to bring the Taliban to power to create an excuse to invade has no merit what so ever because the sanctuaries threatened the foundation of the hegemonic order.

The perfect scenerio for the hegemonic order to continue was to do exactly what the hegemonic power did and that was to create a gov in Kabul that was in conflict with Pakistan.

[randolph85]

If this were really about the Taliban, the US would of pressured Pakistan from 2001 onward. This is why I cannot even formulate an answer as to why America occupied the country and fought the Taliban while knowing where their main source of survival was. This isn't like the 80s when the Afghans used Pakistan as a base and the Russians knew going into Pakistan would open up a new can of worms. There must of been some weird intricate deal making for this deal to be accepted by the Americans and Pakis.

[khushal]

If this were really about the Taliban, the US would of pressured Pakistan from 2001 onward. This is why I cannot even formulate an answer as to why America occupied the country and fought the Taliban while knowing where their main source of survival was. This isn't like the 80s when the Afghans used Pakistan as a base and the Russians knew going into Pakistan would open up a new can of worms. There must of been some weird intricate deal making for this deal to be accepted by the Americans and Pakis.

Realism in International relation states that nation states are all rational actors. So everything that happened with Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US have to be rational.

If the US had invaded Pakistan or shook up Pakistan in any way to possibly and risked creating an Iraq like chaotic situation in South Asia. That would have been a huge threat to the hegemonic order because Pakistan as it is today in conflict with India is essential to the hegemonic order. The US as a hegemonic power only purpose is to prevent nation states from aligning to counter them(HP) and keep nation states in conflict with each other and keep them dependent on HP.

The only thing the US could do was to pressure Pakistan, which they did, but Pakistan made the only rational choice which was to support both sides and made a bet that the US was going to fail creating a viable gov in kabul in conflict with them(pak) even with their(pak) help.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

The purpose of occupation was to prevent sanctuaries to movements that wanted to over throw dictatorial regimes that kept the hegemonic order in place.

Your hypothetical hypothesis about the US strategically planned to bring the Taliban to power to create an excuse to invade has no merit what so ever because the sanctuaries threatened the foundation of the hegemonic order.

The perfect scenerio for the hegemonic order to continue was to do exactly what the hegemonic power did and that was to create a gov in Kabul that was in conflict with Pakistan.

Your contention seems more inconsistent, because Taliban themselves were a dictatorial regime and were more than eager to work with the Americans So their movement was no threat to them. Even Taliban themselves said they were no threat and were wanting to embrace U.S. involvement. Watch some of the interviews with Sayyid Rahmatullah Hashemi

The Charlie Rose interview here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVODTELDVl8

The fact Pakistan was largely spared and even gained financial reward, while Afghanistan took the punch would indicate that what you describe was a red herring, hence the Conspiracy

[khushal]

Your contention seems more inconsistent, because Taliban themselves were a dictatorial regime and were more than eager to work with the Americans So their movement was no threat to them. Even Taliban themselves said they were no threat and were wanting to embrace U.S. involvement. Watch some of the interviews with Sayyid Rahmatullah Hashemi

The Charlie Rose interview here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVODTELDVl8

The fact Pakistan was largely spared and even gained financial reward, while Afghanistan took the punch would indicate that what you describe was a red herring, hence the Conspiracy

I never said the Taliban themselves were a threat. It were the sanctuaries for the groups that wanted to over throw their respective regimes. Those regimes kept the hegemonic order in place and the elimination of those regimes was the threat.
The US under clinton first tried to persuade the Taliban to give up those groups and eliminate the sanctuaries which the taliban refused and were slapped with sanctions.

Pakistan was never a target so they did not need any sparing. Pakistan as it is presently is perfect to keep the hegemonic order. Afghanistan is the buffer state, so it has always served the punching bag ever since the brits and russian empires.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

I never said the Taliban themselves were a threat. It were the sanctuaries for the groups that wanted to over throw their respective regimes. Those regimes kept the hegemonic order in place and the elimination of those regimes was the threat.
The US under clinton first tried to persuade the Taliban to give up those groups and eliminate the sanctuaries which the taliban refused and were slapped with sanctions.

Pakistan was never a target so they did not need any sparing. Pakistan as it is presently is perfect to keep the hegemonic order. Afghanistan is the buffer state, so it has always served the punching bag ever since the brits and russian empires.

Well think back to your message several posts ago A "rational" Conspiracy Theorist would say OBL was staged. Well if OBL was staged then would the Taliban, since they housed OBL Taliban didn't really "refuse" they just said "work with us". It's like a wrestlemania event, playing up the drama.

Watch the Charlie Rose interview, Hashemi even indicates Taliban were basically pleading with the U.S. to work with them.

[khushal]

Well think back to your message several posts ago A "rational" Conspiracy Theorist would say OBL was staged. Well if OBL was staged then would the Taliban, since they housed OBL Taliban didn't really "refuse" they just said "work with us". It's like a wrestlemania event, playing up the drama.

Watch the Charlie Rose interview, Hashemi even indicates Taliban were basically pleading with the U.S. to work with them.

What are you talking about. Your all over the place.

First , I've have already listened to the interview. Hashamis pleading with the US only contradicts your hypothesis because you state that the taliban and US were working together from the beginning to create an excuse for the invasion. Hashami statement confirms that htey were not working together.

Second, the "work with us" was a plead for Aid and recognition.
Third, they flatly refused and gave up power for refusing to give up the groups that threatened the hegemonic order.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

It also shows that Taliban were never in conflict with the U.S. and that the OBL issue was just played up for public eyes. Hence conspiracy. Leading to the notion that the Taliban just a apparatus from Western powers.

They didn't flatly refuse, they just wanted "proof"

As Randolph85 said, It's astonishing that if America knew about Pakistan's control and influence over the Taliban that they never went after Pakistan, some sort of deal would have been struck. But as far as conspiracy theories go, The Taliban would have been a manufactured phenomena complete with played out mythologies and characters.

We'll never know, but either case the storyline that Taliban were bunch of Pashtun religious students who rose up is much more dubious than some may want to believe

I am inclined to agree with ComradePashtun, there never was a Mullah Umar. Karzai and zaeef are actors running on the same script.

[khushal]

Your jiving the same stuff that has already been answered.

comrade pashtun changed his mind and says he knows people that have met him many times. He is flip flopper.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

I don't feel the response really provided answers it seemed to ignore key details in the arc