Originally Posted by Chechnya

and what of those who are fighting because their nation has been attacked by a bunch of invaders?

which category do they fall in to?

Well, I'd suppose good. But if the Taliban used their initiative, if they actually had two brain cells to rub together, they'd disband, surrender, wait for the NATO forces to leave and then regroup and engage in civil war. I don't fancy their chances even then, but it's unlikely the West will be bothered to become involved again. Perhaps Iran might lend the anti Taliban forces in Afghanistan 'a hand'.

and what of those who are fighting because their nation has been attacked by a bunch of invaders?

Are they the same ones who wanted to harbor Al Qaeda. which was undertaking attacks on the country that invaded them? Then yes, they are the bad ones.

I'd recommend everyone to watch this documentary first then decide who is real terrorist in Afghanistan, the Taliban or Al Qaeda or US/UK.

Award-winning journalist John Pilger investigates the discrepancies between American and British claims for the 'war on terror' and the facts on the ground as he finds them in Afghanistan and Washington, DC.

In 2001, as the bombs began to drop, George W. Bush promised Afghanistan "the generosity of America and its allies". Now, the familiar old warlords are regaining power, religious fundamentalism is renewing its grip and military skirmishes continue routinely. In "liberated" Afghanistan, the U.S. has its military base and pipeline access, while the people have the warlords who are, says one woman, "in many ways worse than the Taliban".

In Washington, Pilger conducts a series of interviews with William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and leading Administration officials such as Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. These people, and the other architects of the Project for the New American Century, were dismissed as 'the crazies' by the George H. W. Bush Administration in the early 90s when they first presented their ideas for pre-emptive strikes and world domination. Pilger also interviews former presidential candidate General Wesley Clark, and former intelligence officers, while raising questions about the real motives for the 'war on terror'.

While President Bush refers to the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq as two 'great victories', Pilger asks the question - victories over whom, and for what purpose? He describes Afghanistan as a country "more devastated than anything I have seen since Pol Pot's Cambodia". He finds that Al-Qaida has not been defeated and that the Taliban is re-emerging and questions "Victory" in Iraq.

Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror - Download here | Watch it

Taliban: Reconciliation Plan, West's Trickery

Taliban on Wednesday rejected the Afghan government's plan to bring reconciliation with the Taliban. The members who lay down their arms would get economic security, decent work, for the sake of a better Afghanistan. But reconciliation appeal was referred to by the leaders of the Taliban as a Western ploy.

President Hamid Karzai will announce details of the reconciliation plan with thousands of Taliban insurgents lower-middle class. Today in London Afghanistan Summit has been opened and held, the countries associated with Afghanistan gathered to discuss ways to end the armed conflict in Afghanistan.
However, the pro-Taliban website (alemara.co.cc), the Taliban said the plan was a "trick" and the Muslim guerrillas will not be weak to face this worldly deceptions. "They feel the mujahideen (Afghanistan) will be tempted by money or position, such thoughts is in vain and not true," as written in the website alemara .

Currently there are more than 110,000 international troops, mainly from the U.S., placed in Afghanistan. Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan since 1996, has waged a rebellion since ousted from power in that country by US-led invasion in 2001 for allegedly being responsible for attacks on American soil that killed about 3,000 people on September 11, 2001.

The NATO led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) numbered more than 84,000 soldiers from 43 countries, is still trying to quell the Taliban insurgency. 2009 was the deadliest year for Afghan soldiers, policemen, civilians, and also international forces fighting the Taliban. Most of the violence occurred in southern provinces like Kandahar and Uruzgan.

U.S. President Barack Obama announced in December, sending 30,000 additional soldiers to Afghanistan to join U.S. forces and NATO-led ISAF in the country to combat the guerrillas. NATO countries were also sending an additional 7000 troops to the country. Eight years after the overthrow of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, more than 40 countries preparing to increase the number of soldiers in Afghanistan to reach approximately 150,000 people within 18 months.

Around 520 foreign soldiers have died during 2009, which made that year as the deadliest year for international troops since the US-led invasion in 2001 and made the Western public support for war drops. (ant)

Source: http://sabili.co.id/index.php?option...nal&Itemid=198

Note: Material originally in Indonesian, translated via Google Translate.

Lol funny "The Us wants to be a kind helpful friend with the Taliban"
Khayrrrr ALLAHU ALAM

Originally Posted by titus

Are they the same ones who wanted to harbor Al Qaeda. which was undertaking attacks on the country that invaded them? Then yes, they are the bad ones.

Also, a lot of the Taliban aren't even Afghan, believe it or not. They have Pakistanis, Arabs, Uighurs- heck, I heard some Chechnyans were in there believe it or not. So it actually wasn't their country that was invaded at all- if anything, they're just as much invaders as the West!

Well, the proponents of this engagement policy with the Taliban claim that those lower-ranking fighters in the movement aren't there because of ideological affiliation, but because its the only way to earn a living and senior figures in the Taliban are happy to return the favour by granting them stipends for their military services.

Im not sure if all that is just coalition propaganda or if there's actually substance to that arguement, but nothing else seems to be bringing the situation under control. Let's face it, beyond the limits of Kabul, the federal government totally lacks any effective control of the situation and the coalition cannot stay there interminably. Something has to give at some stage. Either Karzai and his lackeys get overthrown by the Taliban, or their impoverished fighters abscond in droves at the thought of receiving cash payments and employment opportunities.

Originally Posted by titus

Are they the same ones who wanted to harbor Al Qaeda. which was undertaking attacks on the country that invaded them? Then yes, they are the bad ones.

The real problem is that the U.S. was attacking Muslims long before "Al Qaida" showed up. While I don't support attacks on civilians, I would certainly support any group attacking western government and military institutions that are hostile towards Muslim countries.

Originally Posted by Supreme

Also, a lot of the Taliban aren't even Afghan, believe it or not. They have Pakistanis, Arabs, Uighurs- heck, I heard some Chechnyans were in there believe it or not. So it actually wasn't their country that was invaded at all- if anything, they're just as much invaders as the West!

This is a good point. Many Afghans just want to be left alone. There is too much foreign meddling in Afghan fairs and this has been the case for a very long time. The pakistanis, arabs, etc. are just as meddlesome as NATO.

Originally Posted by Trumble

Hardly. Afghanistan was, and is, a pinprick prepared with both resources committed to and lives lost in Vietnam and the US was still a superpower after that.

Sadly you are correct. I say sadly because it is an example of just how calloused we have become over war loses. When I look at the USA war loses that occurred in my lifetime, the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan has been insignificant in terms of American cost. The first day of the Normandy Landing in WW2 was considerably more expensive than the total cost for both Iraq and Afghanistan has been to date. Vietnam has been our most costly recent conflict, yet it was negligible when compared to our own civil war of 1860-1865.

While even the loss of one life is too high of a price, the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan is probably the least expensive conflict the USA has ever been involved in.

Sadly, because we have become calloused we have trouble in understanding that while it has been low budget in terms of military cost, it may be the most expensive in terms of innocent lives lost.

Roughly 5000 USA troops have been killed in ten years of Afghanistan during this same time period at least 400,000 Americans were killed in automobile accidents in the USA. If Just 10% of them were American Soldiers that means 40,000 soldiers died in car accidents during those 10 years, or another way is to say an American soldier is 8 times more likely to be killed in a Car Accident in the USA than to be killed in combat in Afghanistan. A US Serviceman is safer in Afghanistan than on the roads of America.

I don't think enough Americans are aware of how many innocent lives Afghanistan has cost, because it's price has been very minute in terms of the US military budget and past costs of war.

The majority of Americans have not been affected by Afghanistan and the majority do not personally know even one person who has died in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has not had any personal impact on most Americans.

They NEVER fight these wars to win... Vietnam was not ment to be won either.... Ppl in control of these wars just want these to linger-on because they make profit out of these, while securing israel as much as possible, at the same time... The day war stops their profits will fall...

With all might of US it was not difficult to defeat iraq in 1st gulf war in 30 min(as they claimed), but they slowed it down to make the most out of Kuwait & Saudi Arabia in addition to tax money of Americans.... same with Afghanistan & 2nd gulf war.... Same with letting usama loose under their eyes, so they would have an ongoing excuse to keep going with so-called war...


The other thing is that so-called negotiations with taliban are in fact cover name for buying/recruiting so-called-taliban a.k.a fenatics to work for them against Pak-istan...

When Pak govt. was doing peace deals with taliban, US was enraged...

Originally Posted by Argamemnon

The real problem is that the U.S. was attacking Muslims long before "Al Qaida" showed up. While I don't support attacks on civilians, I would certainly support any group attacking western government and military institutions that are hostile towards Muslim countries.

How was it showing hostility to Muslims? The USA had a rather good relationship with the Muslim world until 9/11, and the USA played a significant role in helping the Mujahadeen to victory against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

This is a good point. Many Afghans just want to be left alone. There is too much foreign meddling in Afghan fairs and this has been the case for a very long time. The pakistanis, arabs, etc. are just as meddlesome as NATO.

Indeed. For such a barren and poor land, Afghanistan has been raped by foreign armies over the years because of her East-West geographical positions and the strategic importance this brings.

Originally Posted by Supreme

Also, a lot of the Taliban aren't even Afghan, believe it or not. They have Pakistanis, Arabs, Uighurs- heck, I heard some Chechnyans were in there believe it or not. So it actually wasn't their country that was invaded at all- if anything, they're just as much invaders as the West!

good excuse, just shows how many 'brain cells' you have

Originally Posted by Supreme

Well, I'd suppose good. But if the Taliban used their initiative, if they actually had two brain cells to rub together, they'd disband, surrender, wait for the NATO forces to leave and then regroup and engage in civil war. I don't fancy their chances even then, but it's unlikely the West will be bothered to become involved again. Perhaps Iran might lend the anti Taliban forces in Afghanistan 'a hand'.

It doesn't work like that, there isn't any surrender in jihad, its obligatory to fight till death or till its over. Anyone coming into our lands with an army and oppressing our people gets fought, doesn't matter what the chances are, look at the chances of your own armies right now, all you seem to hear about is bodies piling up and nothing being acheived.

Originally Posted by aadil77

good excuse, just shows how many 'brain cells' you have

Oh yes, I stated researched fact! What a stupid thing to do!

It doesn't work like that, there isn't any surrender in jihad, its obligatory to fight till death or till its over. Anyone coming into our lands with an army and oppressing our people gets fought, doesn't matter what the chances are, look at the chances of your own armies right now, all you seem to hear about is bodies piling up and nothing being acheived.

I know it's never going to happen, I was suggesting what if. The Taliban aren't educated, because if they were educated, they wouldn't be Taliban in the first place. They're too stupid to ever surrender.