polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 14^th, 2019 at 9:57am:



Very well - who IS a legitimate MUSLIM LEADER then?

Tell us what you want to emulate or wish for.

freediver wrote on Feb 15^th, 2019 at 12:59pm:


No to your second question.

The taliban were clearly serious about transforming themselves from an insurgent group to a legitimate and accepted government in the eyes of the world. They craved acknowledgment through diplomatic relations and trade deals. As I keep reminding you, as late as 2001 they were sending envoys to the White House (ie the great satan) to plead for a gas pipeline deal. Strange behaviour for an outfit apparently only interested in killing the infidel and fighting to the death.

The difference between a 'fight to the death' insurgent group who spend their entire existence fighting an existing government, never having to worry about governing - and actually taking over an (almost) entire country and actually trying to govern - has clearly gone over your head. Even fanatics will become desparate to hold on to power once they attain it. Your suggestion that a ruling authority with all the power they could have dreamed of will happily relinquish power just so they can go back to the simple life of fighting the good fight against infidels - doesn't pass the common sense test.

I'm not getting through am I FD?

You are suggesting that a group that has managed, after years of bitter fighting, to overthrow a national government and take over most of a country - would prefer to chuck it all in just so they can go back to square one - ie being insurgents trying to overthrow another government, as opposed to hanging on to the grand prize?

Can you at least think about how stupid that sounds?

freediver wrote on Feb 15^th, 2019 at 6:27pm:


They were already trying to work with the great satan. They went to Washington to bend over and beg the great satan to intrude on their sacred Islamic land and build their gas pipeline. Hows does that fit in with your 'oppose the great satan no matter what' narrative?

Also bin Laden and his team were not "fellow Afghan muslims" - they were arabs, and obviously in their eyes, in a *VERY* different league to their Afghan brothers. There's a reason why I used the specific phrase marriage of convenience - and had it been convenient to end that marriage - say, I don't know, by giving them a way to save their regime, then I don't think they would have thought very hard about ending that marriage.

freediver wrote on Feb 15^th, 2019 at 10:13pm:


Interestingly, they called themselves The Islamic State of Afghanistan, and was a government of former Mujahideen who overthrew the Russian communist puppet regime in 1992. They in turn were overthrown by the Taliban during 1995-96

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2019 at 12:28pm:


bin Laden was not Afghani.

While its true the pashtun (the ethnicity of the taliban) has some honour code towards people they saw as 'guests' (which they often referred to Al Qaeda as), betraying a bunch of rich arab upstarts would be in a completely different ballpark to betraying their fellow Afghanis. If push comes to shove, and knowing how desparate the taliban were to preserve their regime, I think they would have been up for it. Even to the point of allowing a small American commando force in to take out AQ.

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2019 at 9:43pm:


Ideally yes. At least that is certainly a lot closer to my stance than the proposition that the taliban assist in an "invasion" of their country. I can only repeat that the taliban were not suicidal, and actually were interested in building a state - and certainly not in being a permanent insurgent force achieving nothing but glorious defeats in perpetuity.

Also, in response to the use of the term 'great satan' - presumably to strengthen your case, this is a term used by the Ayatollahs in Iran, and as far as I'm aware the taliban ever referring to the US in these terms. You may think its mere semantic, but I will point out again that the taliban spent years attempting to curry favour with the US, especially in regards to getting a US gas pipeline deal through their country. You scoff at the idea of the taliban allowing "great satan" forces in to capture bin Laden - I counter by pointing out that they were already trying to do deals with the 'great satan' and were more than happy to invite them in to trample all over the 'pure muslim land'.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 5:10pm:


So now we now have leapt from the Taliban probably not even being capable of delivering Bin Laden (despite offering to as part of "negotiations"), to the Taliban being capable of helping the US to capture Bin Laden without the US invading and without the death of a single Afghan?

Would you like to take a moment to get your story straight before continuing?

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 9:37pm:


You seem to be insinuating that the two positions are incompatible? How so?

Its not either or - I believe I've maintained both positions simultaneously all along.

Do you agree that the course taken by the US was the worst possible outcome for everyone - given the quagmire the US is still stuck in 18 years later and counting, the suffering it has caused to Afghanis - not to mention that it failed in its stated objective - to actually capture or kill bin Laden?

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 9:37pm:


Its not technically an invasion if you are invited in - is it?