|
Randarkman posted:The Soviets and their supporters killed as many as 2 000 000 people in Afghanistan and drove the survivors to flee the country to live in pakistani refugee camps where their children were educated by wahhabbis (that's the origin of the Taliban to a large extent). Their anti-insurgency strategy mostly came down to attacking and destroying the nearest villages as retaliation for soviet casualties. During the war almost all infrastructure in the south and east of the country was destroyed and the country lost more than half of its population. No one deserves more blame for the destruction of that country than the soviets and their supporters. You're acting as if refugees are an anomaly and that the inculcation of wahhabism was a simple by-product of being in Pakistan, rather than a specific anti-soviet strategy by the US. The blame for the country's destruction lays firmly at the feet of the US.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:43 |
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:You're acting as if refugees are an anomaly and that the inculcation of wahhabism was a simple by-product of being in Pakistan, rather than a specific anti-soviet strategy by the US. The blame for the country's destruction lays firmly at the feet of the US. To be honest I don't think the US policymakers gave that much of a poo poo about what was taught in the refugee camps at all. Wahhabism in general and the Taliban specifically didn't really make much of an apperance until after the Soviets left anyway, from the mid-90s onwards. The inculcation of wahhabism came about because a large number of those refugee camps were run by religious organizations out of Saudi Arabia. Then again I simply think the US didn't much care about that aspect of it. The physical destruction of Afghanistan and its population by the Soviets and their puppet regime (though the puppet regime actually was to a large extent pushed aside to a very secondary role as long as the Soviets stayed and almost immediately saw a massive rise in their popular appeal once the Soviets left) during the war year did more to wreck Afghanistan than anything that has happened since. But, yeah, I get what kind of person you are. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Mar 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PressTV/status/978201930198593536
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
Even if that's the complete truth and not just MbS trying to cover his rear end the point still stands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:National Enquirer is owned by a major Trump supporter and has always been right wing / authoritarian in nature. They supported the Nazi's in the 30's along with the Daily Mail. What was when it was a real newspaper is of little import, in today's world a glowing appraisal of a celebrity like ol MBS wanted should have been published under the imprint of a different magazine at American Media, like Us Weekly or maybe Star.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
Almost every segment of Afghan society supported the mujahideen. It was a broad movement. The religious angle largely came about as a result of the power struggle between Khomeini and the Saudi's, who both viewed Afghanistan as an opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
Coldwar timewarp posted:Does anyone know how the Hazara aligned during the Afghan civil war, and back during soviet occupation? They formed the backbone of the tehran 8.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:They formed the backbone of the tehran 8. Any books you would recommend? Deeper than pop history? Bear went over the mountain was a good read but pretty focused, I guess more information on the factions would be what I’m interested in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/anadoluagency/status/978231507339894784Anadolu posted:
These children will learn about their country, Turkey, and their President, R. T. Erdogan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
So uh, I just saw this surface on Reddit and it's pretty  https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/878v5x/rihab_allawi_civil_engineering_student_activist/ (NSFW as gently caress)Complete with a searchable list of 1,5m names of outstanding warrants by the regime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 04:38
|
|
so that means I can be a cheapskate and post about posting instead of having some wit or spending any more on comedy avs for people. Which I'm also incapable of. Comedy.
|
LOL at people defending the Soviets in Afghanistan. The very first thing they did was murder the Afghan Head of State who invited them in. They then proceeded to depopulate the countryside through Vietnam-style carpet-bombing. Who gives a poo poo if their leaders offered up leftist talking points? The Najibullah government didn't even fall when the USSR left. The breaking point was when Dostum the Anal Rapist Warlord defected along with his army of Uzbeks. Even then, they were trying to set up a nominally democratic government during the Peshawar Accords and there was real hope for a lasting peace & political stability until Pakistan ordered its puppet, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, to wage war against everyone else. Pakistan wants "strategic depth" in case they ever get invaded by India, which is just a dumb excuse to destabilize your neighbor for 3 decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
Were moving ever closer to a WW2 style conflict in the middle east... Turkish towns had "welcome our new provinces" banners a week ago. Now they announce an intervention into Iraq to "defend" turkey. So what the gently caress guys. Turkey is using NATO membership as a veil to anschluss swathes of syria and oil rich iraqi kurdistan...
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
when can we get schizophrenia included under reasons for a ban? did they ever toss out that nut macdonald or whatever their name was?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
Mcdowell was banned for making too many posts in Cspam about how Heaven’s Gate is good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
Sergg posted:LOL at people defending the Soviets in Afghanistan. The very first thing they did was murder the Afghan Head of State who invited them in. They then proceeded to depopulate the countryside through Vietnam-style carpet-bombing. Who gives a poo poo if their leaders offered up leftist talking points? The Najibullah government didn't even fall when the USSR left. The breaking point was when Dostum the Anal Rapist Warlord defected along with his army of Uzbeks. Seems like India is there and has historically supported armed groups in Afghanistan so Pakistan’s reasons for strategic depth holds some water. India has reasons to be there as well, it’s silly to disregard that when they are both playing the same great game we have seen before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 06:24
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:https://twitter.com/anadoluagency/status/978231507339894784 Soon they will learn that they are not this thing known as "Arabs", but are simply "Sand Turks". LeoMarr posted:Were moving ever closer to a WW2 style conflict in the middle east... Turkish towns had "welcome our new provinces" banners a week ago. Now they announce an intervention into Iraq to "defend" turkey. So what the gently caress guys. Turkey is using NATO membership as a veil to anschluss swathes of syria and oil rich iraqi kurdistan... Like I was saying before bro, they did this in 1974 and have held their ill gotten gains ever since.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 06:43
|
|
|
Coldwar timewarp posted:Seems like India is there and has historically supported armed groups in Afghanistan so Pakistan’s reasons for strategic depth holds some water. Yeah, people tend to overlook that India in recent history, and still today, is the biggest security threat to Pakistan (and China). Pakistan's decisions may seem erratic but if you boil it down it's really just good old realpolitik.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 06:44
|
|
|
Turkey took Menagh and Tal Rifaat without a fight, so it looks like Russia sold out the regime's interests there.
Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Mar 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 13:09
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Turkey took Menagh and Tal Rifaat without a fight, so it looks like Russia sold out the regime's interests there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 13:53
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The Russians don't seem to have a choice on that one. If it comes to a fight with the Turks over Syria they're going to lose, and getting stomped by the perfidious Turk would be real bad for Putin's Russia Stronk campaign. I don't think that's true, or that Turkey would start a war with Russia in the first place (Erdogan ended up backing down hard after shooting down that Russian plane a few years ago). I think Putin just sees it as further leverage in his 'turn Turkey against the US' plan, because now that Turkey's dealt with the YPG in territory under Russian influence, all that's left is the territory under US protection.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 13:57
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I don't think that's true, or that Turkey would start a war with Russia in the first place (Erdogan ended up backing down hard after shooting down that Russian plane a few years ago). I think Putin just sees it as further leverage in his 'turn Turkey against the US' plan, because now that Turkey's dealt with the YPG in territory under Russian influence, all that's left is the territory under US protection.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 14:02
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:RuAF has to overtly either Iraq or Turkey to get to Syria. If the Turks decide that Russia needs to gently caress off out of the New Ottoman Empire there is very little Putin will be able to do about it. Because he ain't gonna start bombing airbases in a NATO member state to achieve sir superiority in Syria. Starting a war with a nuclear power because of a tiny strip of land would be idiotic even if you could win the battle at that site without too much trouble. If Erdogan wanted to fight a war with Russia, it would have been to defend Aleppo, not to take a couple meaningless cities. Plus the idea that you can just start a war with a nuclear power wherever you want as long as it's not inside their actual borders and then count on them not retaliating against you because you have allies is crazy. It's worth keeping in mind that everyone in NATO basically said hey Erdogan, wtf are you doing? when he shot down that Russian plane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Starting a war with a nuclear power because of a tiny strip of land would be idiotic even if you could win the battle at that site without too much trouble. If Erdogan wanted to fight a war with Russia, it would have been to defend Aleppo, not to take a couple meaningless cities. Plus the idea that you can just start a war with a nuclear power wherever you want as long as it's not inside their actual borders and then count on them not retaliating against you because you have allies is crazy. All I'm saying is that if it comes down to a serious test of who is willing to spend more blood and treasure to be declared King of the Rubble in Syria Erdogan will win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 14:09
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Starting a war with a nuclear power because of a tiny strip of land would be idiotic even if you could win the battle at that site without too much trouble. If Erdogan wanted to fight a war with Russia, it would have been to defend Aleppo, not to take a couple meaningless cities. Plus the idea that you can just start a war with a nuclear power wherever you want as long as it's not inside their actual borders and then count on them not retaliating against you because you have allies is crazy. It's worth keeping in mind that everyone in NATO basically said hey Erdogan, wtf are you doing? when he shot down that Russian plane. Conversely, nuclear powers are not going to start glassing the cities of other nuclear powers over small strips of land. What is at risk is economic sanctions, and furthered Russian fuckery in other parts of the world as pressure to other nations to get Turkey in line. Russia, the EU, China, India, Pakistan, etc are not launching nukes no matter what happens in Syria/Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Are you seriously suggesting the idea that there is a scenario in which Russia nukes Turkey? Because if so Tom Clancy's zombie just got a stuffy. Not really, just that the idea of starting a war with them necessitates remembering that it's a worst case scenario. Plotting out a winnable war with Russia without nukes is actually far more in line with Clancy material though, for what it's worth. Edit: There's a rumor going around that Turkey traded away territory in southwestern Idlib, near Latakia, in return for Tal Rifaat, which would obviously be a lot more important to Russia since it provides a larger buffer for their base there. Edit2: This seems big: https://twitter.com/nedmparker1/status/978655471539191809 Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Mar 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:"Soviets and their supporters bad. Those who oppose them, good."
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a sound policy that has certainly never ever backfired in the course of human history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
Coldwar timewarp posted:Seems like India is there and has historically supported armed groups in Afghanistan so Pakistan’s reasons for strategic depth holds some water. Which armed groups, other than the Northern Alliance (which was backed by the Western powers as well)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
svenkatesh posted:Which armed groups, other than the Northern Alliance (which was backed by the Western powers as well)? I was referring to the Northern Alliances component parts. I don’t see how western support is relevant. Pakistan had fought three wars against India since its founding, not the West. It should be obvious why their concern is about India.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Starting a war with a nuclear power because of a tiny strip of land would be idiotic Should have told this to Saddam in August 1990.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Should have told this to Saddam in August 1990. Saddam was an idiot who destroyed his country forever, much more than the 2003 invasion or ISIS ever could.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Not really, just that the idea of starting a war with them necessitates remembering that it's a worst case scenario. Plotting out a winnable war with Russia without nukes is actually far more in line with Clancy material though, for what it's worth. never take anything opec says seriously
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
Laurenz posted:Saddam was an idiot who destroyed his country forever, much more than the 2003 invasion or ISIS ever could. Well to be fair he did have some outside help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
Laurenz posted:Saddam was an idiot who destroyed his country forever, much more than the 2003 invasion or ISIS ever could. CIA training at its best.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
Coldwar timewarp posted:Seems like India is there and has historically supported armed groups in Afghanistan so Pakistan’s reasons for strategic depth holds some water. It's foolish and short-sighted and has done nothing but consistently create more enemies for Pakistan and spark several civil wars inside both Afghanistan & Pakistan. If you have nuclear weapons and your strategy is still to retreat into the Hindu-Kush Mountains in a neighboring country, that's a colossally bad strategy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
Sergg posted:It's foolish and short-sighted and has done nothing but consistently create more enemies for Pakistan and spark several civil wars inside both Afghanistan & Pakistan. If you have nuclear weapons and your strategy is still to retreat into the Hindu-Kush Mountains in a neighboring country, that's a colossally bad strategy. Their strategy is to feast on as much US military aid as they can manage which has worked pretty well. Also to tell the Indians that they will never “defeat” Pakistan as long as they have nuclear weapons. In fact they used the War on Terror to normalize their possession of nuclear weapons, an astute strategic move as it allowed them to avoid war with the US. They have interests, India has interests, those interests clash in a third country. You can look for benefits to the military regimes through support for the Taliban, they exist. You could also argue that keeping Afghanistan weak prevents a potential separatist movement from really taking hold in Pashtun areas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
Lmao https://twitter.com/lisang/status/979091034461409280?s=19 Edit: he's going to meet with oprah, not be on oprah, but still. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Mar 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:
you gave me a loving heart attack. also it's super cool to know that MBS gives Kissinger, AIPAC and loving zionists more of a hearing than he ever gives his own loving countrymen or any arabs in general. God loving dammit why does god keep loving us over. Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Mar 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Edit2: This seems big: They've been stuck in this prisoners dilemma since oil prices first fell and this is what, their 5-7th attempt at getting out of it? Cooperating never works out because someone always pushes betray.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:43 |
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:you gave me a loving heart attack. also it's super cool to know that MBS gives Kissinger, AIPAC and loving zionists more of a hearing than he ever gives his own loving countrymen or any arabs in general. Old Swedish belief was that the prosperity of the land was directly linked to the king, and famines and misery could be remedied by ritually sacrificing the king. So what I'm saying is that, have you tried human sacrifice?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 06:45
|
|