Obituary for Abdul Raziq

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Thats not true. I believe Pashtuns are also way better off under government rule than under Taliban. Most of them agree with me thats why thousands of Pashtuns keep migrating into government controlled areas instead of staying in Talibanistan enjoying the paradise they have created.

Khushal is basically doing an Ad-Hominem, "oh he's a Tajik of course he'd support that",


the Taliban apologists are desperately grasping for anything.

I don't endorse the "lesser of two evils" outlook though. Afghanistan is a broken society and country. People are fukt either way.

[Firdousi]

Khushal is basically doing an Ad-Hominem, "oh he's a Tajik of course he'd support that",


the Taliban apologists are desperately grasping for anything.

I don't endorse the "lesser of two evils" outlook though. Afghanistan is a broken society and country. People are fukt either way.

Iblis I am not even anti Taliban. I know the complex circumstances that has led to the emergence of this movement. Also I have some sympathy for the average Taliban foot-soldier. They have been born in the wrong time, moment and place and many of them have joined the movement not because they are evil but because they live in a toxic environment. They have been so dehumanized that we cheer their death although most of them are like you and me.

But there is something I can not tolerate. First off how some fanboys idealize the Taliban movement. There is nothing genuinely great about this movement. Just because they claim to be "conservative" it does not mean they are good. Secondly Taliban leadership just like our government leadership is trash. Third I believe Taliban should be eventually involved in the government. They can not be ignored anymore. Fourth Taliban per se are not a monolithic movement despite the simplistic claims of people like Khushal. Some elements in the movement such as Haqqani Network or these corrupt Shuras in Quetta and Peshawar must be obliterated asap. And fifth: no matter all the government´s flaws I am 100% sure that Afghanistan is better off with our corrupt kleptocratic government than with the Taliban.

At the end of the day we know both the Afghan government and the Taliban are doomed. We Afghans just need to create a proper system able to fit and integrate our diverse nations, ethnic groups, cultures and religions into a broader inclusive "state". We also must "reform" our culture. The current conservativism practiced in Afghanistan is toxic and contradictory. We need to acknowledge the good things that Modernity has to offer without losing our core values. I believe this can only be achieved through strong civil institutions and not by crazy movements like the Taliban who have nothing to offer us.

[Firdousi]

If you take 2 Afghans on opposite ends of the political spectrum and they present all their arguements with references, each will be able to poke holes in the others narrative, while the nation remains a toilet because of the people they support or defend.

Afghans today don’t have the luxury of choosing pious leaders, they will follow communists if their lives and property are protected. In Kandahar, they followed Raziq because he made their lives easier, in Andar Ghazni they may follow the Taliban for this same reason, and in the north maybe Dostum.

I feel like on the internet, political/historical minded Afghans are more caught up in the past than the current players in Afghanistan are. The Taliban killed a dozen Iranian agents in Mazar and some of their leaders condemned Shias, now they take Iranian support and attend conferences in Tehran. Communists exchanged their mustaches for beards and called themselves Mujahed. Karzai went from the most token worthless pro American pos you have seen to the same pos but acting like a nationalist. Hekmatyar goes from mountain Mujahed to Kabul mailbox Mujahed while foreign boots are still on the ground. Taliban with “here is our yearly Ramadan message” signed “Mullah Omar and not Mullah Mansoor umm lol maybe? Ok really it’s me Omar trust me”

Well said.

IMO diversity+democracy are recipe for disaster. Democracy promotes factionalism and it only works in religious and ethnically homogenous countries such as in the West. Now that massive immigration is leading to deep demographic changes in those countries, politics its becoming extremely toxic, irrational and identitarian. Ironically this happened in Afghanistan before than in the West. I was a youngster when Americans took over but it took me only few years to realize how dysfunctional the system was and how ethnic and religious differences were deepened by political parties. Something similar is now happening in the West. This explains why there are so many and diverse opinions when it comes to who is the best politician or which is the best political system/movement in our country.

At the end of the day its obvious that democracy can not give practical solutions to Afghanistan diverse problems. We Afghans living abroad live in our own bubble. Only Afghans living in Afghanistan can change things for the better. I am confident. Millions of boys and girls are studying right now. They will eventually bring some positive changes to our country. Warlords, kleptocrats, terrorists, invaders,.. all of them will eventually leave or perish. But those children will not.

[khushal]

Khushal is basically doing an Ad-Hominem, "oh he's a Tajik of course he'd support that",


the Taliban apologists are desperately grasping for anything.

I don't endorse the "lesser of two evils" outlook though. Afghanistan is a broken society and country. People are fukt either way.

No Im not. The Taliban made the mistake of marginalizing farsiwan in the 90's so his position is understandable. Because of that mistake, his position where he says the afghan gov is shyt and the taliban are shyt but the afghan gov better than the taliban is a rational reaction. The reaction is rational IMO and he is honest about it but you are dishonest. You are more like a MIC lackey and those guys are psychopaths.

[maneatinglizard]

I gotta say I’m enjoying the debate. I don’t have much time to contribute myself unfortunately, but y’all are generally making good or interesting arguments.

[Insight]

Are you even reading anything I wrote? I addressed that someone writing an editorial piece has no bearing on what the merits of the news paper's reports.. So you're you're essentially DOING exactly what I was pointing in the post you're replying to.

This is precisely what "doubling down" means, somehow in your head you think reverting back to after it's been addressed will give it more impact. It doesn't

your point's been dispelled, what else you got?

Because in a vain attempt to distract me you are making two arguments.

1) that the Pro-Regime media being Pro-War doesnt make it a biased and invalid source. I mean thats bogus. They are Pro-War, what exactly are you trying to prove?

2) that the Pro-Regime media in this case, OutlookAfghanistan's lack of report on Abdul Raziq's crimes does not make it a biased and invalid source.

These sources are biased and lack credibility.

Im saying OutlookAfghanistan/Tolo lack of reporting on Abdul Raziq's crimes does matter especially when you are using them as your source for Taliban crimes (pre and post 2001) . You said OutlookAfghanistan reports on incidences, seems its only Taliban crimes. Abdul Raziq's crimes have been documented for years since 2009. They cant just mistakenly ignore that LOL

If you are using such biased sources then that makes you biased too.

Add Fox,PressTV, and Sputnick to your list of sources lol

[toughpashtun]

In one year from now , the war in Afghanistan would have raged on for eighteen years and twice the length of the Soviet-Afghan conflict.I hope peace prevails but there are many games going on and I for one can't predict what's going to happen.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

.

These sources are biased and lack credibility.

Im saying OutlookAfghanistan/Tolo lack of reporting on Abdul Raziq's crimes does matter especially when you are using them as your source for Taliban crimes (pre and post 2001) . You said OutlookAfghanistan reports on incidences, seems its only Taliban crimes. Abdul Raziq's crimes have been documented for years since 2009. They cant just mistakenly ignore that LOL

If you are using such biased sources then that makes you biased too.

Add Fox,PressTV, and Sputnick to your list of sources lol

First of all let's brings things full circle, this is about Taliban's history of crimes stems way before the U.S. Invasion so this propaganda tactic that The Taliban are just "reacting to foreigners" is falsified by the historical record. You're trying to manufacture the impression that if you can claim a source as "invalid" then the Taliban didn't do crimes. Which is fallacious reasoning, because the links I presented are just relaying from sources themselves.

Secondly, I posted several sources of BOTH Post-U.S. Invasion crimes AND Pre-U.S. Invasion of which you just picked out Outlook and Tolo because you thought they'd be low hanging fruit. However, to dismiss Outlook would not invalidate the article itself because its rooted in other sources. I presented "inks" because you requested them, since you seem to doubt the Taliban's crimes, The links have "other" sources they're derived from. The Outlook article is just listing incidences that have been documented. If you were interested in more corroboration, just search for material related to those specific incidences. I'm sure you can do the backgroiund research.

For the sake of argument, let's assume Your claim is true;that Outlook is biased. To demonstrate they are biased, you have to show that they deliberately didn't report on something for a motivated reason. I'm not saying they are or not biased; I am saying it has no bearing on that article itself; You can try and look for some awkward mental gymnastics on why it's relevant, but from a logical analysis standpoint, it's not.

So Your objection really has no merit; This is just excuse making to avoid the Taliban's history of injustices which is just apart of the facade that the "Taliban are heroes of Afghanistan, reacting to Foreign Intervention"

No One buys it; find a new strategy.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

No Im not. The Taliban made the mistake of marginalizing farsiwan in the 90's so his position is understandable. Because of that mistake, his position where he says the afghan gov is shyt and the taliban are shyt but the afghan gov better than the taliban is a rational reaction. The reaction is rational IMO and he is honest about it but you are dishonest. You are more like a MIC lackey and those guys are psychopaths.

Marginalizing is certaiinly a rather white-washed way of putting it. Subjecting them to tyranny is quite a bit more than just marginalizing though. What am I being dishionest about? You even conceded that the Taliban engaged in heinous crimes against civilians in the 90's, which is what my point was regardiing why their "reacting to foreign interventiion" talk is invalid. Firdousi and I are saying more or less the same thing, which is why you pulled the Tajik card on him. The only thing he and I differ on is the idea the "Lesser of two evils" bit.


Taliban apologists are just getting frustrated that they can't pull the "Taliban are Heroes of Afghanistan that are just reacting against Foreign invasion" angle anymore. As if Taliban are Palestinians trying to push Israeli settlements off their land or something.

[Firdousi]

Marginalizing is certaiinly a rather white-washed way of putting it. Subjecting them to tyranny is quite a bit more than just marginalizing though. What am I being dishionest about? You even conceded that the Taliban engaged in heinous crimes against civilians in the 90's, which is what my point was regardiing why their "reacting to foreign interventiion" talk is invalid. Firdousi and I are saying more or less the same thing, which is why you remarked that you pulled the Tajik card on him. The only thing we differ is the idea that "Lesser of two evils" bit.


Taliban apologists are just getting frustrated that they can't pull the "Taliban are Heroes of Afghanistan that are just reacting against Foreign invasion". As if Taliban are Palestinians trying to push Israeli settlements off their land or something.

Blaming ethnicity its a mentally lazy behavior. I do not think most of Tajiks rejected the Taliban because of their ethnic background. I mean there might be some ethnic bias but in general most of Tajiks I know were upset with the Taliban because they considered a Pakistani proxy occupation force that was selling the country piece by piece to Pakistan, was destroying Afghanistan´s future, oppressing women, literally blowing up our heritage and so on. Jamiat Islami really sold a "good" narrative by fooling most of Afghans into believe that Taliban were not even Afghans but Punjabis. That really helped to divert the domestic hatred for a foreign scapegoat. Only Hazaras and Uzbeks were upset at the Taliban because most of them were Pashtuns, but this kind of mentality was not widespread among Tajiks at all. I believe its also because Tajiks since most of them have an urban culture do not really have an ethnic pride so that helped.

We really overrate ethnicity and exaggerate the role it plays in Afghans daily life. Its important for most of Afghans but I do not think most of them really care when they deal with each other. I have never sensed any ethnic hatred while dealing with Pashtuns or any other ethnicity. When I come across Afghans abroad they are happy to meet their fellow countrymen, they do not care about ethnicity. It makes me really happy when I meet a Herati guy, but I never ask him about his ethnic background because I do not care. Regionalism is by far the strongest force in Afghanistan.

From my experience I gotta say ethnic hatred does not really exist in Afghanistan. People only behave like monkeys when they get involved in politics which is extremely toxic in Afghanistan and ethnicity, religion or language are exploited by clown politicians. I look at my own Heratis, and regardless of their ethnicity, they take pride in their language, their religion, their culture and their city´s history. Nobody really cares about ethnicity.

So people should chill out with this ethnic narrative because its simplistic and not very accurate.

[Insight]

First of all let's brings things full circle, this is about Taliban's history of crimes stems way before the U.S. Invasion so this propaganda tactic that The Taliban are just "reacting to foreigners" is falsified by the historical record. You're trying to manufacture the impression that if you can claim a source as "invalid" then the Taliban didn't do crimes. Which is fallacious reasoning, because the links I presented are just relaying from sources themselves.

Secondly, I posted several sources of BOTH Post-U.S. Invasion crimes AND Pre-U.S. Invasion of which you just picked out Outlook and Tolo because you thought they'd be low hanging fruit. However, to dismiss Outlook would not invalidate the article itself because its rooted in other sources. I presented "inks" because you requested them, since you seem to doubt the Taliban's crimes, The links have "other" sources they're derived from. The Outlook article is just listing incidences that have been documented. If you were interested in more corroboration, just search for material related to those specific incidences. I'm sure you can do the backgroiund research.

For the sake of argument, let's assume Your claim is true;that Outlook is biased. To demonstrate they are biased, you have to show that they deliberately didn't report on something for a motivated reason. I'm not saying they are or not biased; I am saying it has no bearing on that article itself; You can try and look for some awkward mental gymnastics on why it's relevant, but from a logical analysis standpoint, it's not.

So Your objection really has no merit; This is just excuse making to avoid the Taliban's history of injustices which is just apart of the facade that the "Taliban are heroes of Afghanistan, reacting to Foreign Intervention"

No One buys it; find a new strategy.

Strategies? We are discussing your ridiculous sources.

Here are your two arguments regarding your bogus sources

1) that the Pro-Regime media being Pro-War doesnt make it a biased and invalid source. I mean thats bogus. They are Pro-War, what exactly are you trying to prove?

2) that the Pro-Regime media in this case, OutlookAfghanistan's lack of report on Abdul Raziq's crimes does not make it a biased and invalid source.

These sources are biased and lack credibility.

[Insight]

[QUOTE]

First of all let's brings things full circle, this is about Taliban's history of crimes stems way before the U.S. Invasion so this propaganda tactic that The Taliban are just "reacting to foreigners" is falsified by the historical record.

Lets repost what you said in your first post on this thread.

Lot of Abdul Raziq's critics are Taliban supporters or in the very least, Apologists. This idea that they're "just reacting" can be easily debunked by highlighting instances where Taliban were wholly or primarily the aggressor or went far beyond what is necessary to "react". (did they REALLY need to massacre a bunch of Hazaras?!?!).

Since the Taliban have had a track record of vicious crimes targeting unarmed civilians and engaging in brutal acts of torture(which is against Shari'ah, but I digress), it gives the impression that criticism against Abdul Khaliq isn't really about ethics or morality, but rather he was serving a competing power interest. From the Taliban end, everything is fine as long as they're the ones in power. If Abdul Raziq was a Taliban minister, every apologist would white wash his crimes as "just a reaction"

You said the Taliban were committing rampant crimes.



I asked for your sources for Pre-2001 crimes.



You gave me this. My comments are in red

I showed one link and all the links dealt with different incidences. So I'm not sure what your point is....

But since you insist.....

Here you go. A whole list of examples ....now don't go around saying "they're reacting". They're as power hungry as everyone else.





TALIBAN ACCUSED OF MASSACRING 6 - Chicago Tribune

Istalif Campaign -the source of this article was an Opposition member Sibgatullah Zaki who was writing a letter to the UN. There is no research on this man. I can't rule this source out, but there is no determination on it. Maybe someone can elaborate.

Memories of Taliban Regime - The Daily Outlook Afghanistan



Pro-Kabul regime media source



The writer of this article Hujjatullah Zia wants the US war to carry on in Afghanistan for infinity. Just read your own source and his last paragraph. It looks like you do not.

Gosfandi Massacre

In Custody: Law, Impunity and Prisoner Abuse in South Asia - Nitya Ramakrishnan - Google Books


this is a valid source


This one covers the Massacres in Robatak, Bamiyan, and Shomali

Fact sheet: The Taliban's betrayal of the Afghan people - Afghanistan | ReliefWeb

This is sourced from a US State Department Report from November 2001- a month after US intervention in Afghanistan began. US like the Kabul regime and the Taliban are parties to the conflict. Not a Neutral source.





I mean not sure how many more examples are needed before Taliban can be designated as power mongering and corrupt in themselves. But I'd say this should cover it.

You're trying to manufacture the impression that if you can claim a source as "invalid" then the Taliban didn't do crimes. Which is fallacious reasoning, because the links I presented are just relaying from sources themselves.

Not really. Im questioning the fact that out of all your sources, you only had one valid source. All your other sources are from parties to the conflict. Not Neutral. You say that should not matter. It does matter. In war, truth is the first casualty.

Secondly, I posted several sources of BOTH Post-U.S. Invasion crimes AND Pre-U.S. Invasion of which you just picked out Outlook and Tolo because you thought they'd be low hanging fruit.

No, I questioned all your sources but did not have the energy to reference all of them, but I have now. I was using my phone. See you just assume stuff.

However, to dismiss Outlook would not invalidate the article itself because its rooted in other sources. I presented "inks" because you requested them,

You make a claim that Taliban were committing rampant crimes pre-2001, I asked for your sources.

since you seem to doubt the Taliban's crimes,

I asked for your sources. I never said Taliban did not commit crimes pre-2001. I want your sources.

The links have "other" sources they're derived from. The Outlook article is just listing incidences that have been documented. If you were interested in more corroboration, just search for material related to those specific incidences. I'm sure you can do the backgroiund research.

LOL Excuse me!!! The ONUS is on you to explain your sources. It is not my job to look for the "sources" within your source. I mean LOL how ridiculous is this. Like asking Harold and Kumar to do your homework while you take a nap.


I repeat. That is your job to back your claims up with valid sources.

For the sake of argument, let's assume Your claim is true;that Outlook is biased. To demonstrate they are biased, you have to show that they deliberately didn't report on something for a motivated reason. I'm not saying they are or not biased; I am saying it has no bearing on that article itself;

Why does that not have bearing on the article itself? When Fox News does not report on voter suppression of black Americans, but report on George Soros corruption, does that not make them a questionable source? I mean this is common sense.

You can try and look for some awkward mental gymnastics on why it's relevant, but from a logical analysis standpoint, it's not.

Just because you throw around the word logic, does not make anything you are saying logical or making any sense.



You are stating that you hold the Kabul regime and the US State department as reliable sources for crimes in Afghanistan pre-2001.

So Your objection really has no merit; This is just excuse making to avoid the Taliban's history of injustices which is just apart of the facade that the "Taliban are heroes of Afghanistan, reacting to Foreign Intervention"

No One buys it; find a new strategy.

No. I have never said the Taliban did not commit crimes pre-2001. I was asking for your sources that you use to form your opinion about a track record: "Since the Taliban have had a track record of vicious crimes targeting unarmed civilians and engaging in brutal acts of torture"


I mean you can't just make a statement and expect everyone to accept your word. Did you do research on the ground? Are you a journalist?



You gave me sources from parties to the conflict. The Taliban, Kabul Regime, US, Afghan Lawmaker MP are parties to the conflict.



Their words have to be fact checked with regards to Afghanistan.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

First of all let's brings things full circle, this is about Taliban's history of crimes stems way before the U.S. Invasion so this propaganda tactic that The Taliban are just "reacting to foreigners" is falsified by the historical record. You're trying to manufacture the impression that if you can claim a source as "invalid" then the Taliban didn't do crimes. Which is fallacious reasoning, because the links I presented are just relaying from sources themselves.

Secondly, I posted several sources of BOTH Post-U.S. Invasion crimes AND Pre-U.S. Invasion of which you just picked out Outlook and Tolo because you thought they'd be low hanging fruit. However, to dismiss Outlook would not invalidate the article itself because its rooted in other sources. I presented "inks" because you requested them, since you seem to doubt the Taliban's crimes, The links have "other" sources they're derived from. The Outlook article is just listing incidences that have been documented. If you were interested in more corroboration, just search for material related to those specific incidences. I'm sure you can do the backgroiund research.

For the sake of argument, let's assume Your claim is true;that Outlook is biased. To demonstrate they are biased, you have to show that they deliberately didn't report on something for a motivated reason. I'm not saying they are or not biased; I am saying it has no bearing on that article itself; You can try and look for some awkward mental gymnastics on why it's relevant, but from a logical analysis standpoint, it's not.

So Your objection really has no merit; This is just excuse making to avoid the Taliban's history of injustices which is just apart of the facade that the "Taliban are heroes of Afghanistan, reacting to Foreign Intervention"

No One buys it; find a new strategy.

The implication of your argument is that there are two equivalent wrongs going on and that those that would want what is best for Afghanistan long term would wash their hands of both sides of the conflict.

If I understand it correctly, it amounts to an assessment that "wrong is wrong no matter what."

I don't think that is a bad idea in many respects. After all, everyone can make an excuse based off some prior event or precedent to subsequent action justification. Where does that end a cycle of violence?

But I would say such a stance is a long term losing one is in the historical context.

I would ask you to ponder the quote of Arundhati Roy, in her excellent answer to Jeremy Scahill in this interview:

“You support the resistance, but you may not support the vision that they’re fighting for, and I keep saying I’m doomed to fight on the side of people that have no space for me in their social imagination, and I would probably be the first person that was strung up if they won, but the point is that they’re the ones that are resisting on the ground and they have to be supported, because what is happening is unbelievable.”

https://theintercept.com/2018/04/17/arundhati-roy-intercepted-jeremy-scahill/

The rest of the interview is well worth listening to on the podcast.

To build on this quote: The point is - you have grown up in the US. You have certainly learned the history of the tribes that used to inhabit the north American continent.

The Shawnee under Tecumseh fought fiercely in a final battle and of course we all know of Geronimo's exploits which is why they named the famed Abbottabad operation target as Geronimo. It was a historical reference.

The natives certainly committed some atrocities against each other and against colonialist families.

That being said, you know what their fate was: casinos, death of their tribes, alcoholism, a defeated nation.

We see the same Japan - birth rates continue to decline and Dave Chappelle continues to half joke about how the two nuclear drops resulted in a feminine defeated society in decline.

Roy's quote distills it down beautifully:

It comes down to the fact that there are two large groups or entities at war:

1. Something called an insurgency comprised of a Quetta Shura, some splinter groups, Hizb-e, Haqqani, etc.

2. Some Firdous called the government - comprised of technocrats, emigres, locals who benefited from the invasion, but most importantly the NATO nations and the US with physical boots on the ground and a completely foreign religious and ethnic group (i.e. Westerners/Europeans).

I won't accept the argument that group 1 also has "foreign interference" because most of the world has accepted that boots on the ground is an entirely different phase and form of aggression than "soft power" and military arms support.

This construct then really makes this war no different then Vietnam.

The same exact things were being said about Group 1 back then:

Vietcong Terrorism Sweeping the Mekong Delta as Saigon's Control Wanes - The New York Times

At the end of the day, Roy is pointing out that there is a greater wrong and a lesser wrong in the arc of history and that is that group 2 is, without a doubt, wholly in need for a white, Christian, foreign invasion force to prop it up with inflicted force and violence. For all intents and purposes, such a force is an invasion force.

This then distills down to a simple choice, as simple as it was in Vietnam or as simple as it is in the commentary of Miss Roy:

One side, with all its demerits is an insurgency that has clearly stated its vantage point: all white Christian troops are to leave, period.

The other side has, in on paper agreements signed by Mr. Karzai and then Mr. Ghani said: white Christian foreign troops are to stay indefinitely to enrich us and prop up this government.

This in turn means that to criticize both as somehow equivalent evils entails that autonomy does not matter.

I would say the contrast between conquered and dead civilizations that ceded their autonomy (Some parts of Africa, parts of Latin America, American Natives, etc) and victorious ones (Vietnam, Cuba, Chile, the Colonialist United States in the later phase against the Brits) that maintain their autonomy is not in doubt.

For all the criticisms of them - even the US Public caught on in the 1960s that "Vietcong Terror" was irrelevant as that group existed because of a US presence.

The US left and the Cong eventually moderated and what we see now are men like Ron Paul and even the now dead McCain having called for increasing bilateral trade relations with Vietnam.

The same was also said of the Mullocracy in Iran. Yet Khomeini eventually died and Kathami would eventually sit on the takth.

For that matter, we have seen multiple instances during the Karzai presidency where local federated units of Afghanistan (as Us states would) implemented laws that were anathema to western sensibilities. When the Western press piled on Karzai ceded more and more autonomy and basically acted as he was told proving yet again that the Kabul government is reliant in totality on white western force and with that force comes attached strings.


More recently we saw Mr. Ghani promise the Lithium reserves to Mr. Trump in a fashion akin to the African dictators that sell their resources at a well below market value price. In essence, Mr. Ghani made it clear that his team was so afraid of Mr. Trump departing that he would do whatever and give whatever it took even if it squandered Afghan blood and treasure.

So in summary: there is no moral equivalency between the occupier and the truly occupied. Miss Roy clearly understands this difference and does not try to impose her views of right and wrong or generate some way to justify being equivocal when the stakes are so high based off past historical examples stated above.

[maneatinglizard]

How a Taliban Assassin Got Close Enough to Kill a General - The New York Times

This is a really good article on the assassination. This part in particular should be interesting to this discussion:

The scramble to get the Americans out of the governor’s compound after General Raziq was killed led to a brief firefight between American and Afghan security forces, with the Americans crashing through a gate and shooting at least one Afghan officer dead as they left, American officials said.

This should make it clear without a doubt that the government of Afghanistan is a puppet state. American soldiers attacked Afghan soldiers to get their people out, and even killed at least one. What reprucussions will there be? None, because American soldiers are legally free to do whatever they want in the country. They could drop bombs on the Arg if they felt like it and little Ghani wouldn’t be able to say anything.

How can anyone say that is an independent nation?

But a puppet state does not necessarily equate to a nation of puppets, and the second thing this story shows is that there is no longer any trust between most officials in the Afghan and American governments.

It really does seem like the relationship is not long for this world, which makes me wonder if America will even bother to prop it up after they withdraw, like the Soviets did for a while. I think Ghani and the national government is going to be thrown to the wolves. Karzai did the smart thing and became friends with Russia. I wonder if Ghani has an exit plan secured or if he’s gonna be this generations’s Najib.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

How a Taliban Assassin Got Close Enough to Kill a General - The New York Times

This is a really good article on the assassination. This part in particular should be interesting to this discussion:



This should make it clear without a doubt that the government of Afghanistan is a puppet state. American soldiers attacked Afghan soldiers to get their people out, and even killed at least one. What reprucussions will there be? None, because American soldiers are legally free to do whatever they want in the country. They could drop bombs on the Arg if they felt like it and little Ghani wouldn’t be able to say anything.

How can anyone say that is an independent nation?

But a puppet state does not necessarily equate to a nation of puppets, and the second thing this story shows is that there is no longer any trust between most officials in the Afghan and American governments.

It really does seem like the relationship is not long for this world, which makes me wonder if America will even bother to prop it up after they withdraw, like the Soviets did for a while. I think Ghani and the national government is going to be thrown to the wolves. Karzai did the smart thing and became friends with Russia. I wonder if Ghani has an exit plan secured or if he’s gonna be this generations’s Najib.

Well, what may happen when and if the US leaves is Putin may then commit resources and possibly troops.

I am not disagreeing w Iblis and Firdaus in principle. Some may decide that the government is a preferable option. My point is that true (not insinuated and not conspiracy theory orientated) occupation has consequences. We are seeing this today in North and South Korea. South Korea for a long time assumed that they had a stalwart Ally that cared for their lives. However, when things were getting hot and DT was asking About the use of nuclear arms - They were clearly astounded that no part of this calculation took South Korea’s well-being into account. He even went so far as to sacrifice joint exercises if he saw that to his benefit.

We just all have to realize that in this cruel world - No one else other than ourselves has our interests and Our well-being close to their heart.