Taliban say they are not looking to rule Afghanistan alone

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Where do you think Taliban finances come from? From a young Mullah Omar’s wise decision to invest in Apple stock back in the 80s? It’s drugs, extortion, foreigners, neighboring states, etc. Their money is just as haram as Kabul’s

THIS! ...... that's one thing that irks me is they don't look at Taliban with the same scrutiny; this is what I mean when I often say Afghans and really Muslims in general are caught up in image and bravado and not substance and content. It's all confirmation bias.

There are people out there that actually believe some apocrypyal tale about Mullah Umar refusing cream and fresh bread is factual and that somehow makes him a noble leader. Yet all reason and evidence runs contrary.

There's this idea that One side is Good, the other side is evil; but like the Mexican Cartel Wars, where rival cartels are vying for power and have their influence in things.

[Insight]

I don’t think you understand that what is in place now are institutions, it doesn’t matter who is in charge. Every soldier in any nation is a “hired gun.” Legitimacy doesn’t matter because in the real world the strong survive and right or wrong doesn’t matter. No one voted for the Taliban in the 90s, where did their legitimacy come from? It came from nearly defeating their enemies before US intervention. Had Najib defeated the Mujahadin, he would of had the same “legitimacy”

Where do you think Taliban finances come from? From a young Mullah Omar’s wise decision to invest in Apple stock back in the 80s? It’s drugs, extortion, foreigners, neighboring states, etc. Their money is just as haram as Kabul’s


And Do you really think the US will stop keeping the Kabul regime on welfare if they leave? Lol.

As for a parallel state, you either don’t understand what I am saying or you think that if there is a peace deal, everyone involved or related with Afghan government institutions in the last 18 years will suddenly disappear. Your outlook and perspective is the extreme view that the Talib in this article is ensuring will not happen. That is what is most ironic here.

Hypotheticals once again.

When US left Vietnam, they abandobed the puppet regime in place. Likewise, when Russia left Afghanistan, they abandoned the puppet regime in place, funding it for only a short time after.

So there you have it.

Regarding parallel state, I understand completely what your saying. The puppet regime's power was solely based on a US military presence. Without that US military presence, the regime forces and "institutions" won't last long as evidenced by Vietnam and Russia's defeat in Afghanistan.

Remember Russia too built up these so-called "institutions" you keep referring to.

It is delusional to think this regime can survive minus a US presence .

[Insight]

No one is forgetting anything. It’s been obvious for years that Pakistan plays a double game and it has worked well for them. As for the US leaving, what makes you think whatever financial and political incentive to keep these routes active will disappear? It’s always been financial/political, not cause someone said “the troops in Afg will harm you if you break our supply line”

Dude this is common sense. Why am I still doing this?

“I am too old for this ****” - black guy from lethal weapon

Bro remember we are just discussing.

In response to your bolded question. I ask you what makes you think US (after US withdrawal ) will devote billions of dollars to the ANA and pay Pakistan for supply lines to the ANA?

I mean Trump's made it clear he wants to cut financial losses in Afghanistan. Why do you feel he will be willing to commit billions of dollars post US exit when he cant even get $5 billion for a wall (much less than what they devote to Afghan war per year)?

[Insight]

THIS! ...... that's one thing that irks me is they don't look at Taliban with the same scrutiny; this is what I mean when I often say Afghans and really Muslims in general are caught up in image and bravado and not substance and content. It's all confirmation bias.

There are people out there that actually believe some apocrypyal tale about Mullah Umar refusing cream and fresh bread is factual and that somehow makes him a noble leader. Yet all reason and evidence runs contrary.

There's this idea that One side is Good, the other side is evil; but like the Mexican Cartel Wars, where rival cartels are vying for power and have their influence in things.

Bro, No one is disputing the fact that the Taliban/Afghan insurgency get support from Pakistan, Iran, regional countries and the drug trade.

We are discussing the US withdrawal from Afghanistan after an agreement with the Taliban and what it means for the Kabul puppet regime and it's security forces.

Do you believe US will keep funding the ANA? IMO , No

Do you believe Pakistan will continue to open supply lines to the ANA after a US exit? Again, IMO No

[Insight]

I don’t think you understand that what is in place now are institutions, it doesn’t matter who is in charge. Every soldier in any nation is a “hired gun.” Legitimacy doesn’t matter because in the real world the strong survive and right or wrong doesn’t matter. No one voted for the Taliban in the 90s, where did their legitimacy come from? It came from nearly defeating their enemies before US intervention. Had Najib defeated the Mujahadin, he would of had the same “legitimacy”

Where do you think Taliban finances come from? From a young Mullah Omar’s wise decision to invest in Apple stock back in the 80s? It’s drugs, extortion, foreigners, neighboring states, etc. Their money is just as haram as Kabul’s


And Do you really think the US will stop keeping the Kabul regime on welfare if they leave? Lol.

As for a parallel state, you either don’t understand what I am saying or you think that if there is a peace deal, everyone involved or related with Afghan government institutions in the last 18 years will suddenly disappear. Your outlook and perspective is the extreme view that the Talib in this article is ensuring will not happen. That is what is most ironic here.

Discussion of legitimacy is not an issue I am making. Me stating that the Kabul regime lacks legitimacy is like saying the sky is blue. It is an occupation regime for crying out loud!!!!

You stated earlier that there can't be a parallel state. I asked you to clarify whether you are referring to the Kabul regime or the Taliban (2 sides in this conflict). You clarified stating the Taliban insurgency would have to disarm. You didn't explain to me why the defeated Kabul regime forces should remain other than stating that they have more numbers and are an "institution." Thats neither here nor there.

Your argument winds down to this in laymen terms that a losing party should remain in power against a "supposedly" winning party. In event US leaves, Taliban insurgency would be the obvious victors having gained their main objective. Your only answer for this is that the ANA is an "institution" and has more "numbers." You state that everyone tied to the Kabul regime will simply not just disappear once US leaves. I am saying they will lose their power. You are saying they will not lose. We disagree!!!

If that is your perspective that they should remain, just state it clearly. No need to push a personal bias as fact based when it isn't. They will remain. Im sure naysayers also believed the puppet Vietnamese regime would stay in place after the US left there too!!! Saigon fell rapidly.

We are not discussing right and wrong. I never claimed to.


Victors of any conflict don't typically disarm and yield to a defeated opposition (the Kabul regime in this case) whose whole power depended on a US military presence and airpower. Im just pointing the obvious out. Forget the term legitimacy.

My point stands that the Kabul regime and its forces depend on US military presence and US cash. This is as clear as day and night.

My opinion is that the Kabul regime and it's security forces will collapse once the US leaves.

[Insight]

Does anyone else disagree with me?

My point stands that the Kabul regime and its forces depend on US military presence and US cash. This is as clear as day and night.

My opinion is that the Kabul regime and it's security forces will collapse once the US leaves

[Firdousi]

Does anyone else disagree with me?

My point stands that the Kabul regime and its forces depend on US military presence and US cash. This is as clear as day and night.

My opinion is that the Kabul regime and it's security forces will collapse once the US leaves

You are a retarded Paki nationalist. We dont disagree with you. We openly mock you.

[khushal]

Brother, you should stop buying what the Alt Right keeps barking.

Im not buying it, Im just saying trump will use these as election slogans. He is a salesman and he uses catchy slogans to sell to idiots. Mass media is against him so he knows he needs another way to divert idiots to his side.

Correct me if I am wrong: Tikrit, Ramadi, Fallujah, Mosul, Raqqa, Baiji, Baquba,.. all these places were "taken" (aka carpet bombed) on Obama´s watch. Trump just followed the same strategy. He did not change anything.

Trump basically cut off support to the FSA which also funneled weapons to ISIS. He bombed ISIS which basically handed Syria back to Asad. His goal was to leave Syria and he is doing that.

And there wont be any wall.

He will build the wall one way or another because he knows he will lose his base if he does not. He is not as stupid as the media portrays him.

Republicans lost the last elections. At this point its most likely that Democrats will win in 2020. Alt Right has been destroyed and exposed as weak and incoherent online movement. Aggressive Liberals are all over the country bullying everybody with their nonsense and nobody can stop them.

Republicans didn't lose the last election. They lost the House but gained in the Senate. Dems don't really have any strong candidates either. No center moderates, all of them who are running are far left. Trump will just call them commies, he has already started his nick name attacks. But he uses that as catchy slogans to sell to idiots.

USA´s economy was already booming with Obama. And the White American demographic decline has not been reverted. Trump has just ruined the USA from within.

It was a slow boom during Obama but that was because of Fed Reserve Policy not Obama policy. The real boom came right after the Republicans took over the white house and congress. The reason that happened is because republicans usually deregulate and lower taxes on corps to attract investment to the US. Democrats do the opposite, tax the corps and regulate everyone which forces people to invest somewhere else. They use the tax revenue to create welfare programs which is mostly stolen by the health industry. Republicans usually divert the treasury to MIC.
Center moderate republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham usually make deals with Democrats to share the treasury between military contractors and Health industry contractors and call it bipartisan. Its the whole butter/guns analogy in economics.

Trump hasn't ruined the USA, it was ruined by decades of bad policy by greedy MIC and greedy Social program contractors. They borrowing/stealing from future generations and spending it today. If economy is good in 2020, Trump will win, if the economy is bad, then he will lose. Another strategy the Dems will use is have some center moderate republican to run as an independent and split the republican vote handing the election to the Democrats. Starbucks Shultz might split some democratic votes. A Trump win in 2020 is not out of the question.

[maneatinglizard]

He bombed ISIS which basically handed Syria back to Asad.

It wasn't Trump that handed Syria over to Assad, it was Obama.

Obama (and his coalition) was the one who fractured the Mujahideen and other rebels, and forced them to fight each other instead of Assad. His interference also caused Russia (which initially was willing to lose Assad) to step up their support for Assad.

If America under Obama didn't decide to start bombing Syria and interfering with the rebels, Assad would probably be dead right now.

[Insight]

It wasn't Trump that handed Syria over to Assad, it was Obama.

Obama (and his coalition) was the one who fractured the Mujahideen and other rebels, and forced them to fight each other instead of Assad. His interference also caused Russia (which initially was willing to lose Assad) to step up their support for Assad.

If America under Obama didn't decide to start bombing Syria and interfering with the rebels, Assad would probably be dead right now.

Exactly, US (under Obama) wished to align with Iran and exploited the ISIS threat for that purpose.

In fact, way back in 2009-2011, James Baker and Brzezinski published a policy paper stating that Israel is a liability for the US, and that US should realign with Iran. The method of doing so would be to find common ground against theoretically Sunni "extremists." However, no one was lost on the irony that Iran represented Shia extremists.

Israel led by Netanyahu made sure everyone was aware of that and made clear it opposed US involvement in Syria. I believe the Israeli airstrikes always had a larger strategic purpose in that Israel would not tolerate Western accommodation of Iran.



There is a lot of material regarding this topic.

[Toramana]

Brothers, what is going to happen once American withdraw troops? Give the best insight as you can.

[Insight]

Brothers, what is going to happen once American withdraw troops? Give the best insight as you can.

After US withdraws, Taliban/Afghan insurgency will take over most of Afghsnistan within at least a year IMO

They will leave most of Kabul city alone, like the administrative areas where government and diplomatic staff are. They would probably take that over through soft power. I do not think they want a Taliban takeover of Kabul played out on TV.

Just my two cents.

Lots of things are going to change imo.

[Insight]

Brothers, what is going to happen once American withdraw troops? Give the best insight as you can.

I do think Taliban will impose their rule without a doubt. Alcohol, opium, prostitution in Kabul, and dog fighting will all be wiped out, as it all was before. Bacha bazi too.

However, womens advancement and rights will be the way the Taliban would try to change their image, and be receptable to the world IMO. The Taliban insurgency's biggest priority is trade and normalization with the rest of the world. They want investment and business. They want to grow and modernize the economy. I see educated women having a big role.

I still strongly believe Ghani can make himself invaluable to the next government.

Those 80 year old warlords marrying 10 year old girls !! That won't fly IMO

[khushal]

There are no women rights in Afghanistan. The way things are now is that men take advantage of those loose women or women who have no male kin to protect them. The freedom they talk about is having drinking parties where they get drunk to get rid of their inhibitions and then practice immoral behavior. Just look at what happened with the men and women soccer teams. Those ladies were raped by the men.
Women doing the same thing as men isn't freedom, its just an illusion of freedom. Its like when you watch those liquor commercials of crown royal or jack danials etc. They show these well dressed classy people with good character drinking but the reality is that a bunch of smelly drunks using the F word who cant even control their bowels are the ones drinking. Its all an illusion.