Russian soldiers arrive in Syria MUST WATCH!!!!

[BarakzaiAbdali]

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.

Whats with the name Evil Bunny?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

easy political opportunism.

next

Explain please.

[evilbunny]

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.

Whilst the Assyrians where ethnically cleansed from Iraq. Syria is a very different type of society and Assad's regime will arm them. The Kurds and Israelis both have designs upon Syria and a serious attempt is being made to fragment the country.

You idiots destroy your own countries and then you sit around wondering why the Muslim world is such a ****hole.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Is evilbunny Soldat under a new name? If so why?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Whilst the Assyrians where ethnically cleansed from Iraq. Syria is a very different type of society and Assad's regime will arm them. The Kurds and Israelis both have designs upon Syria and a serious attempt is being made to fragment the country.

You idiots destroy your own countries and then you sit around wondering why the Muslim world is such a ****hole.

so then why are Russians and Iran helping the Taliban again, ignore the apologetic of Khushal and Barakzai, I have presented evidence of Taliban admitted Russian support. Why are you so happy to supply a bunch of Extremists like the Taliban?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Explain please.

Investing with a black market of extremists who maybe useful to do grunt work on their behalf , like say weakening and damaging permanently the hegemonic reach of the U.S.

[randolph85]

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?

i think you may be overestimating what the northern alliance international supporters think of the movement. they are simply proxies that they would dump like pakistan dumped hekmatyar, if it suited them. the northern alliance has no real power and antagonizing them is the least of these powers worries since there would be no repercussions. unlike the taliban, the northern alliance really has no ideology to speak of. most movements with their backs against the wall can be pawns of whoever hands them money or weapons. rabbani turning to the russians is proof of this. karzai has suitcases full of iranian money flowing into his bank account, while iran does the same with his political rivals like abdullah abdullah.


the northern alliance has been divided for years, rabbani was in the karzai camp, qanuni stopped being a player after his last election loss, and the least important member with "massoud cred," abdullah, is like sarah palin to karzais obama.


no untraditional backer of the taliban today, like iran or any other wants to see the karzai regime fall. they want to give the americans a headache, this comes at the expense of a prolonged war, but what do they care? i don't even think pakistan wants to see karzai fall, or else they would be handing out anti aircraft weapons to the taliban in droves. the status quo has been working for our neighbors.

[roadrunner]

He sounds strange foe a Russian

[BarakzaiAbdali]

i think you may be overestimating what the northern alliance international supporters think of the movement. they are simply proxies that they would dump like pakistan dumped hekmatyar, if it suited them. the northern alliance has no real power and antagonizing them is the least of these powers worries since there would be no repercussions. unlike the taliban, the northern alliance really has no ideology to speak of. most movements with their backs against the wall can be pawns of whoever hands them money or weapons. rabbani turning to the russians is proof of this. karzai has suitcases full of iranian money flowing into his bank account, while iran does the same with his political rivals like abdullah abdullah.


the northern alliance has been divided for years, rabbani was in the karzai camp, qanuni stopped being a player after his last election loss, and the least important member with "massoud cred," abdullah, is like sarah palin to karzais obama.


no untraditional backer of the taliban today, like iran or any other wants to see the karzai regime fall. they want to give the americans a headache, this comes at the expense of a prolonged war, but what do they care? i don't even think pakistan wants to see karzai fall, or else they would be handing out anti aircraft weapons to the taliban in droves. the status quo has been working for our neighbors.

Sure, I understand the war of attrition concept. Its the only way that an existing nation can take on the US of A with its vastly superior technological advantage. A head to head between Iran and the US and/or Pakistan and the US and or Pakistan + iran vs US in full on confrontation without an intent to occupy would result in two countries being made into green glass within a few days.

In fact that was Scheuer's argument for why Americans adversaries lured the US into Afghanistan in the first place and were doing a happy dance when they were foolish enough to walk into Iraq. There were documents found in Iraq after they offd Big Z over there indicating they were trying to lure the US into Iran as well if possible.

So in fact one of the things that was noted was that right before the Kerry vs Bush election, out popped a video from you know where with the goal of ensuring that the Americans elected Bush beacuse he would be the most likely to keep the US in Afghanistan for as long as possible (i.e. teh goal was to take advantage of its hubris and economically milk it as long as possible and ensure it converted into a war economy ---> thats like converting from aerobic to anaerobic metabolish for a nation (i.e its begins its red sun phase and decline/contraction).

But the problem with SXE's original theory was it was far more nefarious and painted a picture of a group of guys with black turbans that were in an evil cave, wearing evil clothes, doing an evil meeting with evil Hamid Gul who evilly cackled as they discussed burning down Kabul. Now, somehow all these intelligence agencies got together and somehow got the address of these evil guys and had another grand evil meeting or individual evil meetings?

Come on Randolph you and I both know that the Taliban at this point is not a monolithic super entity but is used in the West to describe pretty much most any person in Afghanistan that picks up arms. Therefore, Hizbe is labeled Taliban, Sayyaf militants that occasionally peel off are called that, the guy with a dead cousin or kid is called that. These people probably have a loose network of some sort, i.e. the enemy of my enemy is my friend which is why Hekmetyaar was willing to say, hey I aint talkin til the Taliban gets involved. Its only natural that folks who take up a cause against a superiorly armed force are going to all find some temporary sort of common ground as even the TTp factions did across the border.

The Russians and the Iranians may very well want to Brzenski the US as the US really pissed off the Russians with the whole Georgia thing and the Iranians know that Uncle Sam and his boss Sheldon Izzy have their address. But SXE's grand theory is to force Graveyard and others to say: well if they take arms from all these people, they very well must then ipso facto believe and serve all of these people's interests.

Let me show you how foolish such an assumption is based on Islamic history:

1) Meccan small force goes to Abbysinia and takes refuge with Negus there with some time lag before Negus converts. Does this then mean that Muhammad and his people were attempting to inflict Abbysinian policy onto Mecca? Where the Meccan Shura a tool of Negus to influence of Arabia?

2) Was the tribal protection afforded by Abu Talib a concesstion on the part of the Muslims that the Prophet was really serving the interests of Elite Arabists in Mecca and somehow round aboutly then supporting the Pagan theocracy?

3) Was the fact that The Prophet required Mutim bin Adi's protection after he lost Banu Hashim's protection an evidence against his genuine goals of undoing the Pagan theocracy since Adi was a pagan and died one???

See this game of supposed allegiance and ideas that Omar and Hamid Gul play marbles together and occasionally Hamid Karzai gets air lifted in to the tournament is just off the wall.

The bottom line is that the Taliban Quetta Shura is composed of Barakzai, Popalzai, Alizai, Alikozai, etc Afghans and they are using whatever means they can to oust someone they dont want around. Their education principles are a mix of native (under Maulavi Paisani of Kandahar who was well known for decades even under Zahir Shah) and perhaps saudi influenced studies across the durand (Zaeef admits this in his book). That latter fact does not however invalidate their genuine belief that they are autonomous Afghans as opposed to super triple agents sitting in waziristan 1 moment and then meeting agents of two other powers next.

You guys are really making this so complex that I am lost in the who backs who are this point.

If I could just get an explanation from you guys on how this support works and how you guys believe it influences Afghan autonomy and how you guys think the Quetta shura functions, it would be helpful for my understanding.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Investing with a black market of extremists who maybe useful to do grunt work on their behalf , like say weakening and damaging permanently the hegemonic reach of the U.S.

Once again runs counter to you original theory of them being US soldiers with black turbans. jk, that was sort of a simplification but the general gist of your prior theory was that they worked with the US and not against it.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

And remember, though Iran and pakistan have some friendly notions at times (the bhuttos have some shiite element) Pakistan is hated by Russia.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Once again runs counter to you original theory of them being US soldiers with black turbans. jk, that was sort of a simplification but the general gist of your prior theory was that they worked with the US and not against it.

U.S. soldiers nah? Doofuses who are easy to make pawns , yes.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

U.S. soldiers nah? Doofuses who are easy to make pawns , yes.

Or simply men who are mortal but are fighting against something more powerful with whatever they can get as opposed to simply accepting it.

[khushal]

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

Thats just here say. There is no real evidence otherwise the US would be all over it. You could almost say that the person saying it wants to create friction between the Ruskies and the Americans. Pakistan denies giving sanctuary or support to the taliban but we all know the truth. We know whats up because it is like a mathematical formula. Common interests trumps all because survival is at stake. Pakistans, the Sunni Arab block survival depends on the success of the Taliban. Does that mean the TAliban are slaves of these regimes, not really because the Taliban gave sanctions to groups that wanted to destroy these same regimes. Why would slaves feed those that would want to destroy their master. The TAliban are well aware that those regimes need them more than they need those regimes.

Here is the Russian position from the horses mouth said by Boris Gromov, governor of the Moscow region, commanded the 40th Soviet Army in Afghanistan. Dmitry Rogozin is Russia’s ambassador to NATO.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opinion/12iht-edrogozin.html?_r=1

That is the Russian position. We are ready to help NATO implement its U.N. Security Council mandate in Afghanistan. We are utterly dissatisfied with the mood of capitulation at NATO headquarters, be it under the cover of “humanistic pacifism” or pragmatism.
We insist that NATO troops stay in the country until the necessary conditions are provided to establish stable local authorities capable of independently deterring radical forces and controlling the country. That is why we are helping NATO by providing transit for goods and training personnel for Afghanistan, including anti-narcotics officers.

You make no sense. The Taliban regularly exagerate about how many Americans they kill during attacks, should we beleive that also.

Show me real evidence.

[khushal]

U.S. soldiers nah? Doofuses who are easy to make pawns , yes.

The US soldiers are the real doofuses, Dieing for corporate Americas profits and contributing to their own nations downfall.

Pawns are easily bought and sold, why wont the Americans just buy the Taliban leadership.