Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/16/terror/printable4264474.shtml U.S. Abandons Afghan Base, Taliban Move In KABUL, Afghanistan, July 16, 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (AP) U.S. and Afghan troops have abandoned a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan where militants killed nine American soldiers this week, officials said Wednesday. Compounding the military setback, insurgents quickly seized the village of Wanat in Nuristan province after driving out the handful of police left behind to defend government offices, Afghan officials said. Some 50 officers were headed to the area to try to regain control, said Ghoolam Farouq, a senior provincial police official. Sunday's attack by some 200 militants armed with machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars was the deadliest for the U.S. military in Afghanistan in three years. Rebels fought their way into the newly established base, wounding another 15 Americans and suffering heavy casualties of their own, before the defenders and warplanes could drive them back. The assault underlined how Islamic militants appear to be gaining strength nearly eight years after the ouster of the Taliban, and the difficulties facing foreign and Afghan forces trying to defeat them. NATO said the post, which lies amid precipitous mountains close to the Pakistan border, had been vacated, but insisted that international and Afghan troops will "retain a strong presence in that area with patrolling and other means." "We are committed, now more than ever, to establishing a secure environment that will allow even greater opportunities for development and a stronger Afghan governmental influence," NATO spokesman Capt. Mike Finney said. Omar Sami, spokesman for the Nuristan provincial governor, said American and Afghan soldiers quit the base on Tuesday afternoon. He said they took the district mayor with them. Sami said U.S. troops armed local police with more than 20 guns before they left, but that the officers had fled the village and crossed into neighboring Kunar province when 100 militants moved into Wanat.

And you post this because you think it is a good thing?

US, being the world police, is not a practice I would support or encourage, but I also despise the fanatical nutjob Taliban whose religious oppression was as bad as we have seen in a long time, so it is not a case of black and white, is it Malik, no matter how much you wish to be portrayed as the poor oppressed underdog.
Unless Islam gets its act together, and reverts to being a personal belief system, instead of a vehicle for religious extremists to promote their idea of a fundamental Islamic world, then the fighting will continue.

The warlords are at it again with their heroin trafficking also, massive amounts are flowing from the region, sell heroin, buy weapons.

They must be very good muslims, because they can justify any deed if it is for the cause of Islam.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 17^th, 2008 at 10:46am:

And you post this because you think it is a good thing? US, being the world police, is not a practice I would support or encourage, but I also despise the fanatical nutjob Taliban whose religious oppression was as bad as we have seen in a long time, so it is not a case of black and white, is it Malik, no matter how much you wish to be portrayed as the poor oppressed underdog. Unless Islam gets its act together, and reverts to being a personal belief system, instead of a vehicle for religious extremists to promote their idea of a fundamental Islamic world, then the fighting will continue. The warlords are at it again with their heroin trafficking also, massive amounts are flowing from the region, sell heroin, buy weapons. They must be very good muslims, because they can justify any deed if it is for the cause of Islam.

I definitely don't support the Taliban.

The fact remains that it took place in Nuristan, which is not completely a Taliban area, there are other anti occupation guerrillas there. I support removing the West from Afghanistan but I don't support having the Taliban in their place.

Really?
Who do you propose that could possibly rule Afghanistan, free from attack from violent Islamist Jihadists?

You may remember the support that these regimes offered to any radical Islamist splinter group who proposed violence against the west.

That is THE crux of the whole problem with Islam, there are no moderate, non-violent muslims, who are able to control the loony extremists.
In fact I do not even know if there are any truly moderate muslim groups.
They all tend to lean towards the establishment of Islamic theocracies, and to be very much against any form of fair and modern democratic process.

They also appear to be very expansionist in their views regarding taking Islam to the world.

I reckon it would be great if you tried to develop an Islamic society that was a model of freedom and fairness, then perhaps the world may wish to come to you.

What is the chance of that happening?

I think if you are honest with yourself, you would probably say zero.
Yet you persist in expecting the world to sit by and leave Islam to sort itself out, and as they have shown zero ability, or desire to do that, I would regard that as an unrealistic expectation, wouldn't you?

I support removing the West from Afghanistan but I don't support having the Taliban in their place.

Do you think the west did the right thing in toppling the Taliban and setting up an alternative government?

freediver wrote on Jul 17^th, 2008 at 12:26pm:

I support removing the West from Afghanistan but I don't support having the Taliban in their place. Do you think the west did the right thing in toppling the Taliban and setting up an alternative government?

It's a pity that the Coalition got distracted and went to Iraq. They would have done some good in Afghanistan had they stayed focused.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 17^th, 2008 at 12:03pm:

Really? Who do you propose that could possibly rule Afghanistan, free from attack from violent Islamist Jihadists? You may remember the support that these regimes offered to any radical Islamist splinter group who proposed violence against the west. That is THE crux of the whole problem with Islam, there are no moderate, non-violent muslims, who are able to control the loony extremists. In fact I do not even know if there are any truly moderate muslim groups. They all tend to lean towards the establishment of Islamic theocracies, and to be very much against any form of fair and modern democratic process. They also appear to be very expansionist in their views regarding taking Islam to the world. I reckon it would be great if you tried to develop an Islamic society that was a model of freedom and fairness, then perhaps the world may wish to come to you. What is the chance of that happening? I think if you are honest with yourself, you would probably say zero. Yet you persist in expecting the world to sit by and leave Islam to sort itself out, and as they have shown zero ability, or desire to do that, I would regard that as an unrealistic expectation, wouldn't you?

We did have a model Islamic society at one stage where the rest of the world came to us, it's when we ruled Islamic Spain, Baghdad and for the majority of the Ottoman empire the Islamic nation was one of learning where Europeans came to learn what knowledge we had.

But sadly in each occasion someone decided to come in and invade the lands, bringing destruction to what we had. In the case of Islamic Spain it was the reconquisition, in the case of Baghdad it was the Mongol hordes and in the case of the Ottoman empire it was the Western invasions of it's lands and sponsoring of religious fanatics like the Wahabi's that caused this problem.

Perhaps if the West stopped supporting Wahabi governments we wouldn't be in the position that we are currently in at the moment.

Also the Taliban never advocated fighting the West, at least not until the West attacked Afghanistan.

In fact the Taliban was in the middle of a huge pipeline deal with the US for many years before 9/11.

I don't support the Taliban and support their removal, but I would not like, in it's place a government that are puppets of the West.

I don't completely dislike the Afghan government, however I dislike their acceptance of US help to remove the Taliban and I dislike the Warlords that the US supports in Afghanistan that terrorize the population. It makes them somewhat obligated to follow US policy in the region, even when the decisions are not in the best interests of Afghanistan. Right now they are under immense pressure to allow the US to use Afghanistan as a base in an attack against Iran. Something which they are resisting.

Afghanistan needs balanced Islam, I personally blame the rise of the Taliban on the Muslim world's neglect for Afghanistan. Had the Muslim world kept to their responsibilty of trying to help those who need it, the Taliban could have been educated correctly on how Islam should be applied and instead of resorting to tribalism and extremism. The problem there is due to the major support for the Taliban coming from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, in particular religious teachings came from Saudi. So many Afghans learnt the Wahabi type of Islam and mixed it with their own culture to make what Afghanistan was under the Taliban's rule.

There needs to be an Islamic State to come about in the Middle East so that the proper and balanced Islam can be taught to the people and the lands ruled under proper and balanced Shariah law instead of Wahabi laws. Once this occurs then a proper government that will be fair and balanced will come to Afghanistan God willing.

This will be prolonged as long as the US and the rest of the West supports kings and dictators in the Middle East, it will come about eventually in the Middle East, whether the West likes it or not, but it's emergence will either be with the blessings of the West with the intentions of having good relations the Islamic State in mutual cooperation and the wishes to have trade and fair diplomacy or it will come about eventually through war and the Muslims will force the West out of the Middle East. It is inevitable, so the West should save its strength by accepting it now because they can't stop it, God Willing.  

It is inevitable, so the West should save its strength by accepting it now because they can't stop it, God Willing.

How come you keep repeating this nonsense, but you never answer the question 'what is stopping them'? If the locals really wanted that, of course the west would not be able to prevent it. But you can't reasonably blame it all on the west.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:26am:

It is inevitable, so the West should save its strength by accepting it now because they can't stop it, God Willing. How come you keep repeating this nonsense, but you never answer the question 'what is stopping them'? If the locals really wanted that, of course the west would not be able to prevent it. But you can't reasonably blame it all on the west.

How is what I'm saying nonsense?

Oppressive dictators and kings in the Middle East and warlords backed by the West in Afghanistan is what is delaying them. For example in Egypt's past elections, the Muslim Brotherhood won the elections, when the votes came in the Western backed President Hosni Mubarak locked any judge opposed to him in prison and also locked any Muslim Brotherhood members in prison too so he could stay in power, the West supports his actions and that's evident by the fact that Egypt gets the second largest amount of military foreign aid that the US gives out (after Israel) so that he can keep his stanglehold on Egypt. If Egypt ever got in the hands of an Islamic State you'd see it expand so rapidly that nothing could stop it, just the same way it did when Salahudeen Ayoube was around, it arose from Egypt then too and took the whole Middle East.

May God grant the Egyptian people victory in establishing a proper Islamic State with balanced Islam and freedom and freeing their land from tyranny, ameen.

according to you, there is NO islamic state ?

why would anyone with an iota of common sense want an oppressive tyannical  system of govt that does not exist ?
Oh, I see why now !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:53pm:

according to you, there is NO islamic state ? why would anyone with an iota of common sense want an oppressive tyannical  system of govt that does not exist ? Oh, I see why now !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL, the Muslim Brotherhood were voted in legitimately by many millions of Egyptians and their agenda is well known to be an eventual Islamic State.

Tyranny is what the US brings.

So why do the Egyptians allow this to happen? If it happened in the US or Australia or Europe we would kill the oppressors. Why does the entire middle east allow it to happen? Even while the west is setting up demcoracies in the middle east, you complain that they are denying the locals what they want. It's like you could knock them over with a feather. It just doesn't make sense for you to blame the middle east's inability to control it's own destiny on such a low level of interference from the west.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008 at 11:41am:

So why do the Egyptians allow this to happen? If it happened in the US or Australia or Europe we would kill the oppressors. Why does the entire middle east allow it to happen? Even while the west is setting up demcoracies in the middle east, you complain that they are denying the locals what they want. It's like you could knock them over with a feather. It just doesn't make sense for you to blame the middle east's inability to control it's own destiny on such a low level of interference from the west.

The West ISN'T setting up democracies in the Middle East, these are similar types of 'democracies' that the US set up in Latin America which are farses. Instead they set up puppet regimes that will do everything the US tells them to.

Right now however, you are starting to see even those governments which the US has set up start to rebel against it.

And you ask why don't they fight? They have fought, in the 60's and 70's they did fight. The US then upped it's military aid to the government and started training it's interrogators how to torture and create fear, much the same as they did with those officers attending The School of the Americas where US backed Latin American dictatorships sent their officers to learn similar things. Soon the Egyptian government started abducting, torturing and murdering anyone who spoke out against them in addition to throwing them in prison without charge. Egypt is a police state and even if you walk down the street and have a big beard or stay at the mosque longer than the prayer time they will lock you up sometimes in fear of you being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood then started in the political process but was banned as a political party, in recent years this has been lifted slightly and still even when they win the election and are proven so by judges they and the judges get put in prison and are tortured.

This is why it's imperitive that the West ceases supporting such tyrants, dictators and kings so that we can establish a proper Islamic State easier, because if we overthrow those governments while they are still being supported by the West (which is inevitable God willing) then I'm sure you can imagine that it'd be less likely that we'd trust the West in anything in the future and that could damage potential relations.

The West is better off withdrawing support and letting the people decide without fear of being persecuted by dictators, kings and tyrants that wish to keep their positions. If the West does that then once we deal with our own nations and get ourselves in order then we can have fruitful relations with the West based on good will between each other, fair trade and understanding.

You can't export democracy at the barrel of a gun.

I also find it astounding that you consider the Wests interference in the Middle East as 'low level'. The West has overthrown many governments, funded terror organizations, backed dictators, themselves invaded two nations and occupied them overtly within the last 10 years and also sent the CIA and their other agencies into many other nations.

That is hardly low level.

The West ISN'T setting up democracies in the Middle East

Yes they are. In Iraq and Afghanistan.

And you ask why don't they fight? They have fought, in the 60's and 70's they did fight. The US then upped it's military aid to the government

So Some money to the Egyptian government explains how they kept the entire middle east oppressed agaisnt the wishes of the locals?

I also find it astounding that you consider the Wests interference in the Middle East as 'low level'.

In a historical context it is. They are not physically occupying it. Fancy being able to oppress an entire region of the globe so easily, despite the fact that the locals are of a different religion and want to use that religion to unite against you (supposedly). It just doesn't make sense.

Quote:

The West ISN'T setting up democracies in the Middle East Yes they are. In Iraq and Afghanistan.

I will agree with you here freediver, the West is setting up democracies in the Middle East. The problem is that they are literally setting them up and influencing the election outcomes. Once this stops we will see some real self-determination from the Iraqis and the Afghans, which will in turn pull them away from the extremist wing of Islam.

I certainly hope so. I see it a bit like humanity's experimentation with communism last century. This is the first time (I think) that democracy has been imposed on a hostile population by a totally alien society. The results look promising so far, but it is fragile.

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 5:24pm:

The results look promising so far, but it is fragile.

In what way does it look promising? And for whom?

The locals turn up to vote. The people they elected are not nutcases. It is a good sign for the local people because they are taking up the opportunity to rid themselves of oppression, despite their distate for the US.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 5:43pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2008 at 5:24pm: The results look promising so far, but it is fragile. In what way does it look promising? And for whom?

America ;)

I do think that Maliki has proven himself partially responsible and less of a puppet than I thought he would be (His recent comments about the Timetable for withdraw are a good example), however he has still sold off his nation's oil supplies to the Americans - something that is clearly not to the benefit of his people.

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 5:46pm:

The locals turn up to vote. The people they elected are not nutcases. It is a good sign for the local people because they are taking up the opportunity to rid themselves of oppression, despite their distate for the US.

Oh yes, all running swimmingly.


Quote:

Afghan warlords 'threaten poll' By Andrew North BBC correspondent in Kandahar   The power of Afghan armed factions means elections there will go ahead in an environment of fear and repression, US-based Human Rights Watch says. A 51-page report released on Tuesday says local warlords are involved in widespread intimidation aimed at affecting the 9 October poll results. Most are former mujahideen leaders and are resisting efforts to disarm them. The study says warlords are using threats of violence to ensure people vote for their preferred candidate. While the continuing Taleban insurgency often gets more headlines, it is the grip these commanders retain that worries more people here. 'US complacency' In some areas the report, entitled The Rule of the Gun, argues the power of the warlords is so entrenched that political activists and journalists are censoring themselves for fear of retaliation. The US group also attacks the American government for complacency about the country's election process and for continuing to work with many of these warlord figures in its war on terror, a strategy it calls self-defeating. Speaking just before the report's release, the US ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, acknowledged the issue. However, he said progress is being made in what he called breaking the back of warlordism. But it is partly because so many militia commanders are still in power that many believe it is too dangerous to hold polls in Afghanistan now, including several candidates who have called for the polls to be postponed. And Human Rights Watch says the risks have been increased by serious shortcomings in the election organisation process as well as with the level of independent monitoring. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/3695684.stm

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 11:56am:

The West ISN'T setting up democracies in the Middle East Yes they are. In Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those are not proper democracies, you act as if the people in Afghanistan and Iraq now have the bill of rights to cover and protect their freedoms, that's not the case at all. These 'democracies' mean you can vote in your government but if you speak out against that government they will put you in prison or send you to guantanamo bay.


freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 11:56am:

And you ask why don't they fight? They have fought, in the 60's and 70's they did fight. The US then upped it's military aid to the government So Some money to the Egyptian government explains how they kept the entire middle east oppressed agaisnt the wishes of the locals?

I was referring to mainly Egypt, but their military and financial support of other dictators in the Mid East is obvious and are the reason why they are still in power.

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 11:56am:

I also find it astounding that you consider the Wests interference in the Middle East as 'low level'. In a historical context it is. They are not physically occupying it. Fancy being able to oppress an entire region of the globe so easily, despite the fact that the locals are of a different religion and want to use that religion to unite against you (supposedly). It just doesn't make sense.

Have you not paid any attention to the rule of Augusta Pinochet and other US Proxies in history? The US doesn't have to occupy the nation to be oppressive to it.