Russian soldiers arrive in Syria MUST WATCH!!!!

[Catya Sher]

That signature is definitely food for thought
Very TURE !
We should all think about that.

You were there at the scene of a siege of Khost???

It's good there are people who remember these things because
as far as the rest of the world is concerned,
there never WAS any invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets !

So quickly they have obliterated it from their minds.
OR: it has been purposely suppressed so that no one
anywhere will make
inconvenient comparisons with the drastic American DEBACLE
in Afghanistan.
let's hope they don't create a second one by attacking Iran...

[Manzareh]

Where does BarakzaiAbdali and Afghanistan2010 live????? do they live in a Muslim country or Saudi Arabia? no they live in the West...

Are you saying there is no-one in the East that has the same mindset as these people? ovcourse there is, on a much larger scale, the main language in this forum is English hence the reason why you are going to get responses from people that live in the West. these are a few people which understand the majority of people back home, they represent the common Afghans, you represent the common English man. Funny thing is your an Asian.

[Afghanistan2010]

That signature is definitely food for thought
Very TURE !
We should all think about that.

You were there at the scene of a siege of Khost???

It's good there are people who remember these things because
as far as the rest of the world is concerned,
there never WAS any invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets !

So quickly they have obliterated it from their minds.
OR: it has been purposely suppressed so that no one
anywhere will make
inconvenient comparisons with the drastic American DEBACLE
in Afghanistan.
let's hope they don't create a second one by attacking Iran...

I can't tell you everything due to security concerns but no i personally were not there but i know the very story from first hand and it is so amazing that you feel being there.

And i like to speak of such stories in the first person because they sound more effective and near to the reader.


But i have witnessed many events.

Also please take care soon im going to post a true story about a Battle that was never fought. InshaAllah.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

THe majahadeen of the 80's and the US both wanted to route communism whom the US viewed as the greatest threat to the "free world." Their views on this matter did not clash. Today you have the Russians and the Americans both wanting to route out the Islamists becasue to the americans communism is no longer a threat, the greater evil.

The Russians would rather have American hegemony than have Islamists at its southern border. Most of those chechens were training in Afghansitan during Taliban rule. The russians viewed the chechen seperatist movement as the greatest threat to the russian federation, they viewed it as precedance for other people to start their own seperatist movements and eventually lead to the breakup of the russian federation. As you can see the Chechen rebellion has subsided since the Taliban have been marginalized in Afghanistan and they thank the Americans for that. Dont you remember when Bush said "Putin is guy you want in a foxhole with you." Russian have been supporting the NA since the civil war days and so has Iran. Iran has many Karzai administration officials on the payroll.

Then it can be argued that the Russians and Taliban both want to get rid of U.S. Hegemony. You're really not showing whee their ideologies differ here. The Chechen Islaimists are Russia's concern; but the Taliban will just end up massacring their own people to care about helping the Chechens, just as had happened in the 90's. It's all politics in the end.

[khushal]

Then it can be argued that the Russians and Taliban both want to get rid of U.S. Hegemony. You're really not showing whee their ideologies differ here. The Chechen Islaimists are Russia's concern; but the Taliban will just end up massacring their own people to care about helping the Chechens, just as had happened in the 90's. It's all politics in the end.

red herring.
Your switching the argument.
I already said that the russians would rather have American hegemony than islamists. You do remember that the russians and the americans/brits were on the same side against the ottomans becasue russia feared Islamists at their southern border. Its about who the russians perceive as the greatest threat to their survival and influence. The russian federation is a very loose federation and can be broken up very easily. Afghanistan as a sanctuary for groups that would want to accomlish such a thing is the greatest threat to the russian federation. It is the Americans that are preventing such a sanctuary. The NA is fully a Russian/Iranian entity, they hate both the Taliban and the Americans. America would have been better off negotiating with the TAliban than dealing with someone like the NA since the Americans have nothing in common with them.

America initailly was happy with thte TAliban back in the 90's since they were causeing problems for the Ruskies. They only had a problem when the Taliban were also giving sanctions to groups that gave America a headache also. This is what they mean by BLOWBACK.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

red herring.
Your switching the argument.
I already said that the russians would rather have American hegemony than islamists. You do remember that the russians and the americans/brits were on the same side against the ottomans becasue russia feared Islamists at their southern border. Its about who the russians perceive as the greatest threat to their survival and influence. The russian federation is a very loose federation and can be broken up very easily. Afghanistan as a sanctuary for groups that would want to accomlish such a thing is the greatest threat to the russian federation. It is the Americans that are preventing such a sanctuary. The NA is fully a Russian/Iranian entity, they hate both the Taliban and the Americans. America would have been better off negotiating with the TAliban than dealing with someone like the NA since the Americans have nothing in common with them. The AMreican could have easily used the TAliban for their own hegemony against Iran and the Ruskies that is if they had brains.

America initailly was happy with thte TAliban back in the 90's since they were causeing problems for the Ruskies. They only had a problem when the Taliban were also giving sanctions to groups that gave America a headache also. This is what they mean by BLOWBACK.

You SAID, but this doesn't make it a fact, so yes your remark is a red herring. likewise the Russians were initially against Islamic movements when it couldn't be used for their advantage, but Russia can use Taliban to their advantage now and so they do. Everything else you're stating is just a narrative, so there's no need to respond to it until it is verifed.

[evilbunny]

"Sunni Islamists" as you put it. Have been in Syria even before Modern Syria came into existence. Of course they have a business there, they're already apart of the country, as are all the other minorities Christians, Shi'a or otherwise, not to mention they're the majority of Syria. The Christians do not support Al-Assad and the alleged Shi'a groups identify themselves as Sunni, perhaps to offset political rivalry. Perhaps Assad should have thought about this before killing protesters

Wow did you learn all of this watching Al Jazeera?

The whole thing is a farce and Assad has been placed between rock and hard place. As the "Syrian" Free Army are foreign backed terrorists, not freedom fighters.

The Christians do support Al-Assad, as for some reason they don't fancy ending up being ethnically cleansed by Salafi Jihads. What right do you think that Turkish/Kurdish intelligence and foreign Jihads have to interfere in the internal affairs of Syria anyway?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Wow did you learn all of this watching Al Jazeera?

The whole thing is a farce and Assad has been placed between rock and hard place. As the "Syrian" Free Army are foreign backed terrorists, not freedom fighters.

The Christians do support Al-Assad, as for some reason they don't fancy ending up being ethnically cleansed by Salafi Jihads. What right do you think that Turkish/Kurdish intelligence and foreign Jihads have to interfere in the internal affairs of Syria anyway?

No I learned all this watching tons and tons and tons of video footage of Assad's ARAB NATIONALIST regime killing unarmed protestors The Salafi jihadis are like not even a main factor, they maybe jumping on the bandwagon of opportunity. But this is nonsense to claim the mainbody of Syrian resistance is Salafi Jihadis. I don't see why they'd be ethnically cleansed since so many of the protesters have been Syrian Christians, this is just a Red Herring to smokescreen the moral cowardice of the Assad regime deliberately murdering civilians, including women and children. Anyone who targets women and children are cowards and have no legitimacy. When the Salafi Jihadis start doing this in Syria, they too will be cowards, but right now it is Assad,

The free Syrian Army is a reaction to Assad, not the other way around, , They can't by definition be labeled "terrorists" this is a scapegoat, as terrorists use violence as a means of intimidation, The free Syrian army are fighting to repel Assad's aggressions; by defintion Assad's actions would however constitute terrorism. the Majority have every right to overthrow their government, even with international assistance, the Assad's have no right to impose themselves if the majority reject them. What business does Russia have on the Will of the Syrian peoples? They're not being Governed by Assad, the obligation to mind their own business is theirs. They're doing the same in Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban

ah but oh Russia can support Wahhabi Extremists like the Taliban but they're somehow impalpable if they're in Syria? Total hypocrisy as usual by Assad and Russian apologists.

[randolph85]

Wow did you learn all of this watching Al Jazeera?

The whole thing is a farce and Assad has been placed between rock and hard place. As the "Syrian" Free Army are foreign backed terrorists, not freedom fighters.

The Christians do support Al-Assad, as for some reason they don't fancy ending up being ethnically cleansed by Salafi Jihads. What right do you think that Turkish/Kurdish intelligence and foreign Jihads have to interfere in the internal affairs of Syria anyway?

lol @ syria now playing the victim. tell that to lebanon.

when the free syrian army kills 10,000 of their own, then you can call them terrorists. and what right does assad or his supporters have to call anyone "foreign backed" when his regime is only standing because of persian shias and atheist white russians?

[khushal]

You SAID, but this doesn't make it a fact, so yes your remark is a red herring. likewise the Russians were initially against Islamic movements when it couldn't be used for their advantage, but Russia can use Taliban to their advantage now and so they do. Everything else you're stating is just a narrative, so there's no need to respond to it until it is verifed.

Dude your theories are at best entertaining.
What evidence do you have that the russians support the Taliban.
Whats a narra tive, the fact the the russians fear islamist. IT was them that created the "istans" of central asia to keep them divided and when the Soviet Union was breaking down, they actually asked the US for help to prevent the "istans" from forging a future Islamic alliance.

On a difeerent note, the christians in syria do support Assad. Once the rebels take over and the security apparatace breaks down, who do you think the people will target. The christians are going to be running for their lives like they did in Iraq.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Dude your theories are at best entertaining.
What evidence do you have that the russians support the Taliban.
Whats a narra tive, the fact the the russians fear islamist. IT was them that created the "istans" of central asia to keep them divided and when the Soviet Union was breaking down, they actually asked the US for help to prevent the "istans" from forging a future Islamic alliance.

On a difeerent note, the christians in syria do support Assad. Once the rebels take over and the security apparatace breaks down, who do you think the people will target. The christians are going to be running for their lives like they did in Iraq.

Narrative that Russians are somehow incapable of using the Taliban for their own purposes just because of the Chechens, even if a small influence exists, it exists.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/russia-funding-resurgent-taliban-1-1385417

Engineer Hamidullah, the Taliban’s former deputy chief of finance, says the Taliban now receive as much funding as they did when Osama bin Laden bank-rolled them before September 11.

"There are some countries that are against the policies of the US and the United Nations, and they support the guerrillas. The most important role belongs to Russia, Iran and Pakistan," he said

from the horse's mouth

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Narrative that Russians are somehow incapable of using the Taliban for their own purposes just because of the Chechens, even if a small influence exists, it exists.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/russia-...iban-1-1385417




from the horse's mouth

You cannot use that quote based on your prior theories though. How will you unify this differential diagnosis when the data pieces dont fall together?

1) Why would Russia and Iran risk antagonizing the Northern Alliance members as one of the biggest friction points within the Afghan government is negotiations with Taliban per this latter group objecting? Russia and Iran had always funded the Taliban. Does this mean that they now slipping cash to both? Or does it mean that they now see the Northern Alliance as pawns of the US? If you accept the latter that complicates you theory a whole lot as you previously said that the US backs the Taliban and Pakistan... with the former benefiting off the largesse to the latter. It becomes way to convoluted and history has to go by the wayside.

2) I thought it was the the Saudi Wahhabists and the Pakistanis that you said are the ideological Godfathers of the Taliban. Iran actually benefits as per the current existence of the Karzai government. If Karzai and the government go, and a neoTaliban movement comes back to power, thats bad for Iran. The Savak type intelligence movement in Iran would never permit such a thing to occur.

Additionally, the US is just looking for a reason to attack Iran. If they fund or arm them, with a CIA that is capable of finding Bin Ladin, to think that Putin and Iran could get away with this is a little bit far fetched.

3) The only common goals that all three have in common are the notion that they could potentially keep the Americans in a war of attrition as long as possible to exhaust "Gulliver" so that he has to leave and they can get back to supporting their individual proxies and squabble over left overs.

Once again, highly unlikely that a Northern Alliance dominated government would allow the US to simply use Afghanistan to destroy Iran when their fixed target since time immemorial has been Pakistan.

So the huge problem with your theory is that it used to go like this:

Mullah Omar doesnt exist or may not exist ----> Taliban are completely ISI pawns or even implants ---> the US and Pakistan collude together so that they can both maintain a status quo war and America gets its reason to have bases and Pakistan keeps its money flow

^ problem with this theory at its base is that Pakistan has destablized tremendously in the past decade to the point where its participation has threatened its confederacy. If the choice is between sustaining the state or supporting an already lost US war and cracking apart, I think we know which way the feudocracy will tilt.

Now the complications of your theory are that

Pakistan, Iran, and Russia all dont want the US to stay and are focused on getting it locked into a war of attrition ---> All support the Taliban ---> Therefore Iran and Russian tenuously support a movement that could eventually retake Kabul if it ejects the Americans --->?????

This now contradicts your original theory and makes it so that it allows for a fudge factor. The fudge factor makes your premise fall a part ---> If the Taliban is willing to stay on life support and take support from anything and anybody then you are either implying that they will somehow meet
A) Wahhabist goals
B) Pakistani/Panjabi goals
C) Shiite theocratic goals
D) Russian istan policy goals

all in one breath.

Basically if you assert the above, you are just validating that there is currently some sort of insurgency with a series of fighting groups... comprised of Afghans of many different brands ---> They are all fighting under the umbrella title of Taliban. Sort of just as the US calls everything that doesnt work toward its interest as Terrorist.

In that case you are only legitimizing the Taliban more.

Arent you ready to admit that this is becoming a very complicated conspiracy theory versus the fact that there are probably some very pissed off Afghans that are picking up guns and willing to do whatever it takes to get the Americans out?

[evilbunny]

No I learned all this watching tons and tons and tons of video footage of Assad's ARAB NATIONALIST regime killing unarmed protestors The Salafi jihadis are like not even a main factor, they maybe jumping on the bandwagon of opportunity. But this is nonsense to claim the mainbody of Syrian resistance is Salafi Jihadis. I don't see why they'd be ethnically cleansed since so many of the protesters have been Syrian Christians, this is just a Red Herring to smokescreen the moral cowardice of the Assad regime deliberately murdering civilians, including women and children. Anyone who targets women and children are cowards and have no legitimacy. When the Salafi Jihadis start doing this in Syria, they too will be cowards, but right now it is Assad,

The free Syrian Army is a reaction to Assad, not the other way around, , They can't by definition be labeled "terrorists" this is a scapegoat, as terrorists use violence as a means of intimidation, The free Syrian army are fighting to repel Assad's aggressions; by defintion Assad's actions would however constitute terrorism. the Majority have every right to overthrow their government, even with international assistance, the Assad's have no right to impose themselves if the majority reject them. What business does Russia have on the Will of the Syrian peoples? They're not being Governed by Assad, the obligation to mind their own business is theirs. They're doing the same in Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban

ah but oh Russia can support Wahhabi Extremists like the Taliban but they're somehow impalpable if they're in Syria? Total hypocrisy as usual by Assad and Russian apologists.

Where exactly was this outcry a few years ago when the Saudis where bombing Yemenis?

Syria is very important strategically and this isn't going to end well. The free Syrian Army aren't peaceful demonstrators and they have plunged Syria into a bloody civil war. They are Salafi Jihads and foreign mercs, not rebels and they even have snipers.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Where exactly was this outcry a few years ago when the Saudis where bombing Yemenis?

Syria is very important strategically and this isn't going to end well. The free Syrian Army aren't peaceful demonstrators and they have plunged Syria into a bloody civil war. They are Salafi Jihads and foreign mercs, not rebels and they even have snipers.

What does that have to do with this?This forum didn't exist 5 years ago; you're um grasping for straws.

Of course the Free Syrian Army aren't peaceful demonstrators; Aren't you paying attention? They GREW as a consequence of attacks ON demonstrators, they're a reaction TO murder. Apparently that isn't a concern for you of course, since you seem to think Murderers are victims and victims are terrorists.

As Randolph said, when the Free Syrian Army kills 10,000 of their own people THEN you can call them terrorists; as for now that is Assad's cross to bear.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

You cannot use that quote based on your prior theories though. How will you unify this differential diagnosis when the data pieces dont fall together?

easy political opportunism.

next