Whom precisely are we trying to help in Afghanistan?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Are not the Taliban and al quada both Islamo-fascist organizations? Are not both primarily Sunni? Do they not share the same aims?
In a nutshell. No
The Taliban's concern is within Afghanistan. It doesn't export it's ideology.
Al Queda on the other hand is international and it exports revenge against aggression
And perhaps you could explain to me their current alliance set to destroy the government of Pakistan?
Do YOU just make this *****( up or was it something you read on the NRA website?
Or the Taliban offer of refuge to Osama bin Laden when he was booted out of the Sudan?
So? What's your point?
Or the fact that al qaeda was considered part of the Taliban ministry of defense in Afghanistan?
uh. no, back to The NRA to do more research colpymeister
Or the fact Mullah Omar refused to give them up?
To who? Why would he?
You read far too much sensationalist tripe my friend
Well looks like you are getting your butt handed to you... I can hear that hamster running on the wheel from here.
Already you are drifting from your foolish posts.
"The Taliban had no use for Al-Queda"
"They kept Al-Queda at arms length"
Well keep adding more junk... maybe we will get tired of toying with you.
Already you are drifting from your foolish posts.
"The Taliban had no use for Al-Queda"
"They kept Al-Queda at arms length"
Well keep adding more junk... maybe we will get tired of toying with you.
You don't get out much do you Eaglet :lol:
Taliban Now Split with Al Queda
October 6, 2008 by · Leave a Comment
Taliban leaders are holding Saudi-brokered talks with the Afghan government to end the country’s bloody conflict — and are severing their ties with al Qaeda, sources close to the historic discussions have told CNN.
The militia, which has been intensifying its attacks on the U.S.-led coalition that toppled it from power in 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network, has been involved in four days of talks hosted by Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, says the source.
The talks — the first of their kind aimed at resolving the lengthy conflict in Afghanistan — mark a significant move by the Saudi leadership to take a direct role in Afghanistan, hosting delegates who have until recently been their enemies.
They also mark a sidestepping of key “war on terror” ally Pakistan, frequently accused of not doing enough to tackle militants sheltering on its territory, which has previously been a conduit for talks between the Saudis and Afghanistan.
According to the source, fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar — high on the U.S. military’s most-wanted list — was not present, but his representatives were keen to stress the reclusive cleric is no longer allied to al Qaeda.
Details of the Taliban leader’s split with al Qaeda have never been made public before, but the new claims confirm what another source with an intimate knowledge of the militia and Mullah Omar has told CNN in the past.
The current round of talks, said to have been taken two years of intense behind-the-scenes negotiations to come to fruition, is anticipated to be the first step in a long process to secure a negotiated end to the conflict.
But U.S.- and Europe-friendly Saudi Arabia’s involvement has been propelled by a mounting death toll among coalition troops amid a worsening violence that has also claimed many civilian casualties.
A Saudi source familiar with the talks confirmed that they happened and said the Saudis take seriously their role in facilitating discussions between parties to the conflict.
A second round of talks is scheduled to take place in two months, the Saudi source said.
The Afghan government believes the Taliban cannot be defeated militarily, and the Taliban believe that they can’t win a war against the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, the Saudi source said.
The involvement of the Saudis is also seen as an expression of fear that Iran could take advantage of U.S. failings in Afghanistan, as it is seen to be doing in Iraq.
Several Afghan sources familiar with Iranian activities in Afghanistan have said Iranian officials and diplomats who are investing in business and building education facilities are lobbying politicians in Kabul. Learn more about King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia »
The Afghan sources wish to remain anonymous due to their political roles.
Taliban Now Split with Al Queda
October 6, 2008 by · Leave a Comment
Taliban leaders are holding Saudi-brokered talks with the Afghan government to end the country’s bloody conflict — and are severing their ties with al Qaeda, sources close to the historic discussions have told CNN.
The militia, which has been intensifying its attacks on the U.S.-led coalition that toppled it from power in 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network, has been involved in four days of talks hosted by Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, says the source.
The talks — the first of their kind aimed at resolving the lengthy conflict in Afghanistan — mark a significant move by the Saudi leadership to take a direct role in Afghanistan, hosting delegates who have until recently been their enemies.
They also mark a sidestepping of key “war on terror” ally Pakistan, frequently accused of not doing enough to tackle militants sheltering on its territory, which has previously been a conduit for talks between the Saudis and Afghanistan.
According to the source, fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar — high on the U.S. military’s most-wanted list — was not present, but his representatives were keen to stress the reclusive cleric is no longer allied to al Qaeda.
Details of the Taliban leader’s split with al Qaeda have never been made public before, but the new claims confirm what another source with an intimate knowledge of the militia and Mullah Omar has told CNN in the past.
The current round of talks, said to have been taken two years of intense behind-the-scenes negotiations to come to fruition, is anticipated to be the first step in a long process to secure a negotiated end to the conflict.
But U.S.- and Europe-friendly Saudi Arabia’s involvement has been propelled by a mounting death toll among coalition troops amid a worsening violence that has also claimed many civilian casualties.
A Saudi source familiar with the talks confirmed that they happened and said the Saudis take seriously their role in facilitating discussions between parties to the conflict.
A second round of talks is scheduled to take place in two months, the Saudi source said.
The Afghan government believes the Taliban cannot be defeated militarily, and the Taliban believe that they can’t win a war against the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, the Saudi source said.
The involvement of the Saudis is also seen as an expression of fear that Iran could take advantage of U.S. failings in Afghanistan, as it is seen to be doing in Iraq.
Several Afghan sources familiar with Iranian activities in Afghanistan have said Iranian officials and diplomats who are investing in business and building education facilities are lobbying politicians in Kabul. Learn more about King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia »
The Afghan sources wish to remain anonymous due to their political roles.
Well looks like you are getting your butt handed to you...
By who? You give yourself far too much credit. It would take a far bigger and brighter person to "ahand my butt" to me.
But keep tryin' It's amusing :lol:
Wow...right on que. Run to the net just like Quandry did and just news spam us. Fill the thread up.
"The Taliban had no use for Al-Queda"
"They kept Al-Queda at arms length."
That news item you just post has NOTHING to do with those two comments you made.
"The Taliban had no use for Al-Queda"
"They kept Al-Queda at arms length."
That news item you just post has NOTHING to do with those two comments you made.
Sure you can tell yourself you didn't make a fool of yourself but your posts speak for themselves.
According to the source, fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar — high on the U.S. military’s most-wanted list — was not present, but his representatives were keen to stress the reclusive cleric is no longer allied to al Qaeda.
Details of the Taliban leader’s split with al Qaeda have never been made public before, but the new claims confirm what another source with an intimate knowledge of the militia and Mullah Omar
Tyrrrrrrr.... you're running from what youuuuu saaaaaid. (said in a tone of sarcasm)
It's ok... you were outmatched from the start. Heck you've been outmatched since you've arrived at CanCon.
It's ok... you were outmatched from the start. Heck you've been outmatched since you've arrived at CanCon.
A little saying I learned from a "real" soldier - Army Ranger
M uscles
A are
R
I ntelligence
N ot
E ssential
You make it work...
M uscles
A are
R
I ntelligence
N ot
E ssential
You make it work...
I'd love to just sit around and chat with you Eaglet, but I'm heavily engaged in something far more challenging (and frankly, more interesting)
... counting the holes in the ceiling tiles
... counting the holes in the ceiling tiles
Instead of answering the question "Whom precisely are we trying to help in the Big A?," I will take a stab at the broader question "What precisely are we doing in the Big A?"
Well, over the last seven years (Soon it will be eight), this is what my betters told me and the two-thirds of Canadians who, like me, are a tad skeptical about this mission.
Quote:
1. To assist the Americans after 9-11, pursuant to Chapter 5 of NATO.
2. To assist the Americans in Enduring Freedom, the Afghanistan phase of their larger War on Terror.
3. To pursue and capture or kill Bin Laden and his co-conspirators.
4. To prevent further attacks on North America. This is simplistically referred to as "Fight 'em there, not here."
5. To relieve the Americans when they went after Saddam in Iraq.
6. To placate Bush and Company when we refused to join the Coalition of the Willing. This was called the "Geezus, the Americans won't buy our exports" apology.
7. To honour Canada's signing of the Afghan Accord.
8. To assist the UN in its NATO led mission.
9. To respond to Karzai and his "democratically-elected" Afghan government's call for assistance.
10. To train the Afghan army so they can maintain order in their own country.
11. To train the Afghan police and their judiciary to ensure the rule of law in Afghanistan.
12. To provide security for the Provincial Reconstruction Teams and NGOs. This is also known as "No security, no nothin'!"
13. To eliminate the narcotics trade which funds the insurgency.
14. To defeat the insurgency. This is known as "The impossible dream."
15. To ensure that Afghanistan never again will be a home to evil doers and plotters.
16. To ensure equal rights for Afghan women.
17. To send "little girls" to school. This is called the "heart-strings rationale."
18. To ensure the Taliban do not return as the Afghan government.
19. To finish the "job." This is the "macho reason" without even defining "job"
20. To not "cut and run." Sorry about the split infinitive
21 - 30 Sorry, I'm boring you!
See why Canadians (60%+ aren't convinced!)
Geesus, if we can't even agree what the hell the mission is and how success is defined, what the hell are we doing there? At the very least, bring our forces home early in 2011!!!!
Well, over the last seven years (Soon it will be eight), this is what my betters told me and the two-thirds of Canadians who, like me, are a tad skeptical about this mission.
Quote:
1. To assist the Americans after 9-11, pursuant to Chapter 5 of NATO.
2. To assist the Americans in Enduring Freedom, the Afghanistan phase of their larger War on Terror.
3. To pursue and capture or kill Bin Laden and his co-conspirators.
4. To prevent further attacks on North America. This is simplistically referred to as "Fight 'em there, not here."
5. To relieve the Americans when they went after Saddam in Iraq.
6. To placate Bush and Company when we refused to join the Coalition of the Willing. This was called the "Geezus, the Americans won't buy our exports" apology.
7. To honour Canada's signing of the Afghan Accord.
8. To assist the UN in its NATO led mission.
9. To respond to Karzai and his "democratically-elected" Afghan government's call for assistance.
10. To train the Afghan army so they can maintain order in their own country.
11. To train the Afghan police and their judiciary to ensure the rule of law in Afghanistan.
12. To provide security for the Provincial Reconstruction Teams and NGOs. This is also known as "No security, no nothin'!"
13. To eliminate the narcotics trade which funds the insurgency.
14. To defeat the insurgency. This is known as "The impossible dream."
15. To ensure that Afghanistan never again will be a home to evil doers and plotters.
16. To ensure equal rights for Afghan women.
17. To send "little girls" to school. This is called the "heart-strings rationale."
18. To ensure the Taliban do not return as the Afghan government.
19. To finish the "job." This is the "macho reason" without even defining "job"
20. To not "cut and run." Sorry about the split infinitive
21 - 30 Sorry, I'm boring you!
See why Canadians (60%+ aren't convinced!)
Geesus, if we can't even agree what the hell the mission is and how success is defined, what the hell are we doing there? At the very least, bring our forces home early in 2011!!!!
Last edited:
When the Taliban cease to exist as a viable organization. That would be #18. If that happens most of the other reasons will be solved. 2011 sounds like a good time frame, if it cannot be done by then, they win.
Bin Laden came close to being killed during Clinton’s both terms, Bin Laden now is well secured in hiding and planning a come back, not that I like the looser. I think that the Liberals were wrong to commit to Afghanistan, Harper was wrong to use the Liberals as an excuse and continue to the tune of over 100 Canadian men and women dead and money squandered for deadly results.
A Real stupid brown nosing job.
A Real stupid brown nosing job.
Does Juan still like to do that? I thought we broke him of that habit on the old forum. Must be a relapse.
Fortunately Bush was able to provide Bin Laden with a conveniant hiddy hole with USA's ally Pakistan