In this thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1543198807

Gandalf has made the following claims about the Taliban:

That they would have assisted the US to invade their own country, if the US had only asked them.

That assisting the great satan to invade and fight their fellow Muslims would have been a face-saving exercise for the Taliban.

That instead of invading, the US should have accepted the Taliban offer to hand over Bin Laden, subject to their review (of unspecified duration) of US intelligence in Afghanistan. Gandalf also conceded eventually that there is no reason to believe they were capable of delivering Bin Laden.

That Afghanistan under the Taliban was less of a threat to the US than Saudi Arabia.

That the Saudi's treatment of women is no worse than the Taliban.

The Taliban were an effective and stable government.

Saudi Arabia was a bigger threat because they exported Wahhabism, which is vaguely linked to terrorism in an arm waving sort of sense, but exporting Wahhabism does not actually refer to either ideas or to terrorism.

---

The facts:

In 1992, the Taliban barely existed. By 1996 they had gained control of over half the country, though anti-Taliban insurgents remained active in areas nominally under their control, and in Gandalfs own words were in a "marriage of convenience" with Al Quaida. Gandalf could never explain whether marriage implies authority or control over Al Quaida, or if it meant they were equals. The majority of Afghans supported US invasion.

In Saudi Arabia, 60% of adult women have a secondary education. Female literacy is estimated at 91%. 20% of the parliament is made up of women.

The Taliban placed women under virtual house arrest. They did not allow women to be educated past the age of 8, and until then were only allowed to study the quran. Students and teachers faced execution for obtaining or giving a real education. Amnesty International reported that 80% of marriages were forced.

The deflections to Saudi Arabia appear to be an effort to blame the US rather than Muslims for everything, on account of the Saudis being a US ally. If we work with Muslims, it is bad and every consequence is our fault. If we work against them it is bad and every consequence is our fault. If we leave them to themselves and ISIS takes over, it is our fault because of what we did in the past...

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 26^th, 2019 at 5:08pm:

The deflections to Saudi Arabia appear to be an effort to blame the US rather than Muslims for everything, on account of the Saudis being a US ally. If we work with Muslims, it is bad and every consequence is our fault. If we work against them it is bad and every consequence is our fault. If we leave them to themselves and ISIS takes over, it is our fault because of what we did in the past...

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 26^th, 2019 at 6:29pm:




In a discussion about the Taliban - and evil embodiment of Islamic ideology -  you Mohamedans deflect to Saudi - an evil embodiment of Islamic ideology.

Why not stick to the evil embodiment of Islam under discussion? Do we need to cover ALL the evils of Islam in ALL the discussions? 

But when we do THAT, you Mohammedans get all SPECIFIC. When we are specific, you go 'yeah but what about'.


Shifty, dishonest, untrustworthy.

Let's talk about the evil embodiments of Islamic ideology AS A WHOLE.  Deal?

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 26^th, 2019 at 8:17pm:



I would love to grind the Saudis' faces into the sand as much as the next man. And I really hope that it will happen in my lifetime, when the West fees itself from its energy dependence on freaky Muslims. Araby will sink back into the sand, and all their bickering will be parochial once more.

What would happen if a rogue  billionaire with a sense of justice pulled off a counter- 9/11 against the Muslims and send a cruise missile to the Kaaba and destroyed it completely? What would Allah do?

There should be a 'go-fund-me' page for THAT! What would be the response? Hundreds of millions of dollars in 10 minutes flat, I guess.

Frank wrote on Jan 27^th, 2019 at 5:27pm:


Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld already did that to the oil-rich country of Iraq, old boy.

Now we have a president who not only apologises for Saudi killings, he sells them billions in weapons to destroy the Yemeni population.

I'd say that's why FD goes for the Saudis. We know you'll happily carpetbomb anyone who's tinted.

[whine voice]------aaaaannnndd it's got nuffink to do wiv islaaaaaaam[/whine voice]

Most probably because they are the best option.

Isn't Iran committed to wiping the Jews off the face of the earth if they get half a chance, (of course just because islam tells them that the trees and rocks will talk to them in the last days when killing said Jews has got nuffink to do wiv islam).

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2019 at 3:50pm:



Can you answer a simple question FD...

presented with two options:

a) have your regime overthrown by overwhelming military force
b) option B

What do you think even a misogynistic extremist, even-worse-than-Saudi-Arabia outfit like the taliban would have gone for?

take your time...