'150,000 Americans couldn’t beat us': Taliban fighters defiant in Afghanistan
- Thread starter سيف الله
- Start date
- Replies 156
- Views 68K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
Salaam
Another perspective, like to share.
Blurb
Afghanistan has been plagued by nearly 5 decades of constant warfare. The violence and bloodshed seem never-ending. But what lessons can we learn from the conflict? What can we learn from war and conflict in Afghanistan?
We are joined in this conversation by Sangar Paykhar, a guest lecturer in the Netherlands, and a cross-cultural communications expert. Sangar also hosts a podcast discussing issues and current affairs in Afghanistan, The Afghan Eye Podcast.
Another perspective, like to share.
Blurb
Afghanistan has been plagued by nearly 5 decades of constant warfare. The violence and bloodshed seem never-ending. But what lessons can we learn from the conflict? What can we learn from war and conflict in Afghanistan?
We are joined in this conversation by Sangar Paykhar, a guest lecturer in the Netherlands, and a cross-cultural communications expert. Sangar also hosts a podcast discussing issues and current affairs in Afghanistan, The Afghan Eye Podcast.
Salaam
Another update
EXCLUSIVE As U.S. prepared exit, Taliban protected foreign bases, but killed Afghans
Taliban fighters have protected western military bases in Afghanistan from attacks by rival, or rogue Islamist groups for over a year under a secret annex to a pact for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces by May 1, three Western officials with knowledge of the agreement told Reuters.
The U.S. State Department gave no immediate response to Reuters over the existence of any such document. Nor did it have any immediate comment on what the three officials described as a "Taliban ring of protection".
Since United States struck a deal with the Taliban in February 2020, paving the way for America to end its longest war, there have been no U.S. combat deaths, and there have been only isolated attacks on U.S. bases.
Instead, the Taliban intensified attacks on Afghan government forces, and civilian casualties have spiralled.
Peace talks between the militants and the government, begun in September, have made no significant progress, and a U.N. report said civilian casualties were up 45% in the last three months of 2020 from a year earlier.
Testing Taliban patience, U.S. President Joe Biden served notice that the U.S. withdrawal would overshoot the May 1 deadline agreed by the previous U.S. administration, while giving an assurance that it would be completed by Sept. 11 - the 20th anniversary of the al Qaeda attacks on the United States.
When the deadline passes on Saturday, around 2,000 U.S. troops will still be in Afghanistan, according to a western security official in Kabul. The commander of foreign forces in Afghanistan, U.S. Army General Scott Miller earlier this week said an orderly withdrawal and the handing over of military bases and equipment to Afghan forces had begun.
Afghan soldiers left manning those bases could need plenty of firepower to resist any offensive by Taliban fighters who have been occupying strategic positions in surrounding areas.
In the past two weeks alone, the militants have killed more than 100 Afghan security personnel in a surge of attacks that followed Biden's announcement that a U.S. withdrawal would take a few months more.
Two of the Western officials said Washington had accepted the Taliban's offer to shield the western military bases from attacks by the likes of Islamic State.
The officials said the Taliban had wanted to demonstrate good faith by meeting a commitment to ensure Afghan soil was not used for attacks on U.S. interests - a key U.S. demand in the February agreement.
"They provided a layer of cover, almost like a buffer and ordered their fighters to not injure or kill any foreign soldier in this period," said one western diplomat involved in the process.
The western officials said it was also important for the Taliban to show its ability to control the more recalcitrant factions in its movement, like the Haqqani network, which has often followed its own agenda, though its leader Sirajuddin Haqqani is the second-highest ranking commander in the Taliban.
A Kabul-based western security official said that militants had kept their side of the bargain.
"The Taliban swiftly responded to even minor attacks conducted by the Haqqani network and Islamic State fighters around the bases," he said.
DEADLINE SATURDAY
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid declined to comment on the so-called "ring of protection" agreement.
More broadly, he said no security guarantee has been given to the United States beyond Saturday's deadline, but talks were underway among the group's leadership and with the U.S. side.
"So far our commitment of not attacking the foreign forces is until May 1, after that whether we will attack or not is an issue under discussion," said Mujahid.
Mullah Baradar, the Taliban's deputy political chief, held talks with U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad to discuss the peace process on Thursday, another militant spokesman, Suhail Shaheen, said in a Twitter post.
Clearly having the militants holding positions around Western bases presents a danger if no understanding is reached.
"They've definitely moved ever closer to a lot of Afghan and foreign bases," said Ashley Jackson, co-director of the Centre for the Study of Armed Groups at Overseas Development Institute, a London-based think-tank.
"Encircling U.S., NATO, and Afghan bases seems like the Taliban strategy to poise themselves to take over when foreign forces leave."
Afghan defence ministry spokesman Fawad Aman said the Taliban had ramped up violence against the Afghan people and their government, while holding fire against foreign forces.
More than 3,000 Afghan civilians were killed and almost 5,800 were wounded in 2020, according to a United Nation report.
"By not attacking the foreign forces but continuously targeting the Afghan security forces and civilians, the Taliban have shown that they are fighting against the people of Afghanistan," Aman said.
Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the Asia Programme at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, sympathised with that view, saying: “they have every right to lambaste a U.S.-Taliban agreement for failing to bring a semblance of relief to Afghans themselves.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...cted-foreign-bases-killed-afghans-2021-04-30/
Another update
EXCLUSIVE As U.S. prepared exit, Taliban protected foreign bases, but killed Afghans
Taliban fighters have protected western military bases in Afghanistan from attacks by rival, or rogue Islamist groups for over a year under a secret annex to a pact for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces by May 1, three Western officials with knowledge of the agreement told Reuters.
The U.S. State Department gave no immediate response to Reuters over the existence of any such document. Nor did it have any immediate comment on what the three officials described as a "Taliban ring of protection".
Since United States struck a deal with the Taliban in February 2020, paving the way for America to end its longest war, there have been no U.S. combat deaths, and there have been only isolated attacks on U.S. bases.
Instead, the Taliban intensified attacks on Afghan government forces, and civilian casualties have spiralled.
Peace talks between the militants and the government, begun in September, have made no significant progress, and a U.N. report said civilian casualties were up 45% in the last three months of 2020 from a year earlier.
Testing Taliban patience, U.S. President Joe Biden served notice that the U.S. withdrawal would overshoot the May 1 deadline agreed by the previous U.S. administration, while giving an assurance that it would be completed by Sept. 11 - the 20th anniversary of the al Qaeda attacks on the United States.
When the deadline passes on Saturday, around 2,000 U.S. troops will still be in Afghanistan, according to a western security official in Kabul. The commander of foreign forces in Afghanistan, U.S. Army General Scott Miller earlier this week said an orderly withdrawal and the handing over of military bases and equipment to Afghan forces had begun.
Afghan soldiers left manning those bases could need plenty of firepower to resist any offensive by Taliban fighters who have been occupying strategic positions in surrounding areas.
In the past two weeks alone, the militants have killed more than 100 Afghan security personnel in a surge of attacks that followed Biden's announcement that a U.S. withdrawal would take a few months more.
Two of the Western officials said Washington had accepted the Taliban's offer to shield the western military bases from attacks by the likes of Islamic State.
The officials said the Taliban had wanted to demonstrate good faith by meeting a commitment to ensure Afghan soil was not used for attacks on U.S. interests - a key U.S. demand in the February agreement.
"They provided a layer of cover, almost like a buffer and ordered their fighters to not injure or kill any foreign soldier in this period," said one western diplomat involved in the process.
The western officials said it was also important for the Taliban to show its ability to control the more recalcitrant factions in its movement, like the Haqqani network, which has often followed its own agenda, though its leader Sirajuddin Haqqani is the second-highest ranking commander in the Taliban.
A Kabul-based western security official said that militants had kept their side of the bargain.
"The Taliban swiftly responded to even minor attacks conducted by the Haqqani network and Islamic State fighters around the bases," he said.
DEADLINE SATURDAY
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid declined to comment on the so-called "ring of protection" agreement.
More broadly, he said no security guarantee has been given to the United States beyond Saturday's deadline, but talks were underway among the group's leadership and with the U.S. side.
"So far our commitment of not attacking the foreign forces is until May 1, after that whether we will attack or not is an issue under discussion," said Mujahid.
Mullah Baradar, the Taliban's deputy political chief, held talks with U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad to discuss the peace process on Thursday, another militant spokesman, Suhail Shaheen, said in a Twitter post.
Clearly having the militants holding positions around Western bases presents a danger if no understanding is reached.
"They've definitely moved ever closer to a lot of Afghan and foreign bases," said Ashley Jackson, co-director of the Centre for the Study of Armed Groups at Overseas Development Institute, a London-based think-tank.
"Encircling U.S., NATO, and Afghan bases seems like the Taliban strategy to poise themselves to take over when foreign forces leave."
Afghan defence ministry spokesman Fawad Aman said the Taliban had ramped up violence against the Afghan people and their government, while holding fire against foreign forces.
More than 3,000 Afghan civilians were killed and almost 5,800 were wounded in 2020, according to a United Nation report.
"By not attacking the foreign forces but continuously targeting the Afghan security forces and civilians, the Taliban have shown that they are fighting against the people of Afghanistan," Aman said.
Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the Asia Programme at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, sympathised with that view, saying: “they have every right to lambaste a U.S.-Taliban agreement for failing to bring a semblance of relief to Afghans themselves.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...cted-foreign-bases-killed-afghans-2021-04-30/
Salaam
Another update, With the Americans and co finally leaving - their client regime is collapsing.
Long but very good analysis.
Taliban perspective
More Muslim perspectives.
Western perspectives, shedding crocodile tears and making their usual excuses, cant bring themselves to admit they had no chance in the first place.
All the Afghan, British and American lives lost and the decades spent bogged down in the conflict.
Now the speed of the allies' hasty retreat is matched only by the Taliban offensive, as city after city falls to their control.
And that's unlikely to end well.
Plenty see through the rhetoric
Imagine my shock and surprise
Western installed elite are packing up their bags.
Medhi Hasan what a shapeshifter he is. Well at tleast the mask has come off.
Remember this?
Taxpayers money well spent.
Talibs secret weapon
Some see sense
Current situation.
Another update, With the Americans and co finally leaving - their client regime is collapsing.
Long but very good analysis.
Taliban perspective
More Muslim perspectives.
Western perspectives, shedding crocodile tears and making their usual excuses, cant bring themselves to admit they had no chance in the first place.
All the Afghan, British and American lives lost and the decades spent bogged down in the conflict.
Now the speed of the allies' hasty retreat is matched only by the Taliban offensive, as city after city falls to their control.
And that's unlikely to end well.
Plenty see through the rhetoric
Imagine my shock and surprise
Western installed elite are packing up their bags.
Medhi Hasan what a shapeshifter he is. Well at tleast the mask has come off.
Remember this?
Taxpayers money well spent.
Talibs secret weapon
Some see sense
Current situation.
Last edited:
Singularity
Elite Member
- Messages
- 309
- Reaction score
- 5
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
https://www.yahoo.com/news/taliban-declare-islamic-emirate-afghanistan-172049750.html Taliban will declare the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in resounding defeat of the US-backed governmentJake LahutSun, August 15, 2021, 10:20 AM·2 min reaPresident of AfghanistanThe Taliban flag. AP Photo/Gulabuddin AmiriThe Taliban plans on renaming Afghanistan in a ceremony at the presidential palace.A Taliban official announced they will declare the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.Only a handful of countries recognized the regime under the same name from 1996 to 2001.See more stories on Insider's business page.The Taliban will declare the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from the presidential palace in Kabul, a Taliban official announced on Sunday.The official spoke under the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press, according to the Associated Press.From 1996 to 2001, the Taliban ruled the country under the same name. Only a handful of countries recognized the regime, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkmenistan.The situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated rapidly amid the final withdrawal of American and NATO troops, with the Taliban making its final move to take over the capital in Kabul after conquering a series of provincial ones.Afghan President Ashraf Ghani fled the country after the Taliban advanced on the capital, with the group later taking the presidential palace.US citizens in Kabul were instructed to shelter in place by the State Department, with reports of the airport taking fire.During the five-year reign of the previous Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban imposed a strict interpretation of Sharia law nationwide. These included significant restrictions on women, who were not allowed to leave their homes without a male companion and were required to be fully covered from head to feet when in public.The Taliban has always used the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in its official communications.International recognition for the Emirate of Afghanistan was minimal from 1996 to 2001 beyond the handful of countries, with the United Nations instead choosing to recognize the exiled Islamic State of Afghanistan.Afghan leaders have created a "coordination council" to meet with the Taliban for coordinating a transfer of power, according to the AP
IslamLife00
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 588
- Reaction score
- 12
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Can you post link to Mehdi Hasan tweets again? It didn't open
edit : I will find his twitter inshaAllah it should show up in search as he is public figure. I'm just surprised as I thought he is on the muslim side
edit : I will find his twitter inshaAllah it should show up in search as he is public figure. I'm just surprised as I thought he is on the muslim side
Last edited:
Eusra Fhaad inshaAllah
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 17
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
"I say US & its allies are not going to tolerate our Islamic Emirates,they are going to keep pestering in affairs of Muslim Ummah and they are nevertheless advised to keep themselves under control with dignified behaviour this time"
-Muhajira ILa Afghanistan
-Muhajira ILa Afghanistan
Eusra Fhaad inshaAllah
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 17
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
What a feeling that peace & justice is restored- hopefully it happens for all muslims around the world.
Thank you Mujahideen brothers!
Thank you Mujahideen brothers!
Eusra Fhaad inshaAllah
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 17
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Edited
Last edited:
Salaam
Iconic images.
Iconic images.
Prayers.
Now its time to win the peace.
American reaction.
The Scale of Humiliation
Mark Steyn observes that the astonishingly rapid victory of the Taliban may be the Imperial USA’s Suez moment and that the scale of the global humiliation is almost off the charts.
Steyn alludes to, but avoids stating, what is entirely obvious to any historically literate observer. This catastrophic defeat was the neoclowns’ war. This was not America’s failure, it was the failure of the self-styled “national security right” who flattered themselves into believing that they dictated reality with their words. Afghanistan is the neocons’ failure. It is AIPAC’s failure. Genuine Americans never wanted, supported, or endorsed the concept of an empire in the Middle East.
https://voxday.net/
One reason why the Afghanistan conflict was prolonged for so long - so the international elite could launder their money through Contracts in Afghanistan - no wonder they want him dead.
Last edited:
Salaam
More comment and analysis.
What will the second Taliban emirate look like?
Veteran journalist Abdel Bari Atwan says the new Taliban government in Afghanistan will be focused on pragmatic state-building, but risks of a new civil war instigated by foreign powers remain.
On Saturday, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani gave a speech praising the high morale of his army’s troops. On Sunday, he fled by helicopter to Tajikistan and became the former president. By Monday, Taliban commanders were seated at his desk in the presidential palace in Kabul.
There was no handover of power, there was a collapse and an armed takeover by the victorious Taliban. Agree with them or not, they stood firm for 20 years against the mightiest power in history, and turned it into the third empire (after the British and the Russian) to sip the bitter cup of defeat at the hands of the Afghan people’s resistance.
Equally humiliated were all the American military analysts who predicted that the Afghan army would hold out at least for a few months after the withdrawal of remaining U.S. forces in September and that Kabul would resist the Taliban advance.
But the army and state institutions disintegrated and the capital fell almost without a fight. Its skies were soon crowded with giant helicopters evacuating American diplomats and citizens, but not the Afghan military chiefs and politicians who collaborated with them and were left behind to their fate.
The same scenes we saw in Saigon after the American defeat in Vietnam were replayed in Kabul on Monday. All the traffic was in one direction: heading for the airport to find a flight on which to flee the city after the Taliban seized control of all the roads. But the number of planes was limited, and they were mostly reserved for people with white American and European skins.
The U.S. failed to build a strong and modern Afghan army, the same failure as in all other countries it invaded from Iraq to Libya to Vietnam. That explains its shockingly quick collapse after the U.S. spent more than $90 billion forming and training it, and perhaps double that amount arming it, to fight a poorly equipped popular militia.
The reasons for that failure are not hard to fathom. Every puppet army created by an invading power has suffered the same fate, from Antoine Lahd’s so-called South Lebanon Army to the Afghan National Defence and Security Force now.
What cause do such armies and their commanders fight for? To protect their country’s foreign occupiers? To retain privileges and make financial gains? Even the latter was little incentive for members of the ANDSF who were poorly paid, fed and treated. Tens of thousands sold their weapons or defected to the Taliban. We should not be surprised if their commanders end up selling Afghan kebabs from stalls in the U.S. like their SLA counterparts.
There are countries like Afghanistan and Yemen that are easy to invade but difficult to remain in, due to a combination of the pride, resilience and fighting spirit of their people and the ruggedness of their terrain. Invaders inevitably suffer tragic and humiliating defeat, as we have been witnessing again in Kabul.
Tough questions
The tough questions being asked now – especially in the six countries neighbouring Afghanistan – are about how things will unfold in the months and years to come, and which camp will the soon-to-be-formed Second Taliban Emirate stand in. There are no easy answers, but a number of factors need to be considered.
First, Al-Qaida in its former guise will not be returning to Afghanistan. Its leader Osama Bin-Laden was assassinated by the Americans. Mullah Muhammad Omar, the former Taliban leader who gave him sanctuary in gratitude for the sacrifices made by the Arab mujahideen, is also dead.
Afghanistan’s new rulers will be much more concerned to gain regional and international support for their legitimacy and state. But it cannot be ruled out that a new terrorist group may emerge under the auspices of the U.S., using the grievances of the Uyghur minority in China to recruit jihadists.
Secondly, there is a risk of renewed sectarian or ethnic civil war. Regional powers like Iran, Russia, India and Turkey – not to mention the U.S. and China – may try to exploit differences between religious, tribal or ethnic groups to play out their rivalries. The Taliban have tried to reassure most of these powers by sending envoys to their capitals. A delegation was in Beijing earlier this month to affirm that a Taliban-led government would not allow any foreign power (meaning the U.S.) to use Afghan territory to destabilise China or support Uyghur militants.
Third, both Russia and Iran discretely provided support to the Taliban, including funds and weapons, in their war against the U.S. occupation. The movement is unlikely to join any alliances against them, or to alienate Russia by destabilising Tajikistan or Iran by persecuting the Shia.
Finally, the Taliban’s founder and principal sponsor and ally is Pakistan. They can be expected to be guided by Islamabad’s geopolitical compass and follow its lead in forging alliances. At present, Pakistan has strong relations with both Iran and Turkey and stands in the same trench as China (which is why the U.S. drastically cut its aid to the country).
U.S. media reports of a power-struggle between rival wings of the Taliban are probably wishful thinking. The movement appears united under Mulla Abdul Ghani Baradar and there are no sign of internal splits.
We cannot foretell what might happen in future, but that could well depend on what the U.S. does. If it opts to wreak military revenge on the Taliban, the entire movement could transform into a new Al-Qaida and take the battle to America and its presence and bases worldwide.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2021/08/17/what-will-the-second-taliban-emirate-look-like/
More comment and analysis
The Taliban and the new Afghanistan | The Big Picture
The US/UK have suffered theIr worst military defeat in decades at the hands of the Taliban. So what is the West's legacy in Afghanistan and what does the future hold for the nation? Join us at 6.30pm on Monday August 16 with guests Moazzam Begg and Yvonne Ridley.
Taliban are Victorious: Weekly Q&A w/ Bilal Abdul Kareem
More comment.
More comment and analysis.
What will the second Taliban emirate look like?
Veteran journalist Abdel Bari Atwan says the new Taliban government in Afghanistan will be focused on pragmatic state-building, but risks of a new civil war instigated by foreign powers remain.
On Saturday, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani gave a speech praising the high morale of his army’s troops. On Sunday, he fled by helicopter to Tajikistan and became the former president. By Monday, Taliban commanders were seated at his desk in the presidential palace in Kabul.
There was no handover of power, there was a collapse and an armed takeover by the victorious Taliban. Agree with them or not, they stood firm for 20 years against the mightiest power in history, and turned it into the third empire (after the British and the Russian) to sip the bitter cup of defeat at the hands of the Afghan people’s resistance.
Equally humiliated were all the American military analysts who predicted that the Afghan army would hold out at least for a few months after the withdrawal of remaining U.S. forces in September and that Kabul would resist the Taliban advance.
But the army and state institutions disintegrated and the capital fell almost without a fight. Its skies were soon crowded with giant helicopters evacuating American diplomats and citizens, but not the Afghan military chiefs and politicians who collaborated with them and were left behind to their fate.
The same scenes we saw in Saigon after the American defeat in Vietnam were replayed in Kabul on Monday. All the traffic was in one direction: heading for the airport to find a flight on which to flee the city after the Taliban seized control of all the roads. But the number of planes was limited, and they were mostly reserved for people with white American and European skins.
The U.S. failed to build a strong and modern Afghan army, the same failure as in all other countries it invaded from Iraq to Libya to Vietnam. That explains its shockingly quick collapse after the U.S. spent more than $90 billion forming and training it, and perhaps double that amount arming it, to fight a poorly equipped popular militia.
The reasons for that failure are not hard to fathom. Every puppet army created by an invading power has suffered the same fate, from Antoine Lahd’s so-called South Lebanon Army to the Afghan National Defence and Security Force now.
What cause do such armies and their commanders fight for? To protect their country’s foreign occupiers? To retain privileges and make financial gains? Even the latter was little incentive for members of the ANDSF who were poorly paid, fed and treated. Tens of thousands sold their weapons or defected to the Taliban. We should not be surprised if their commanders end up selling Afghan kebabs from stalls in the U.S. like their SLA counterparts.
There are countries like Afghanistan and Yemen that are easy to invade but difficult to remain in, due to a combination of the pride, resilience and fighting spirit of their people and the ruggedness of their terrain. Invaders inevitably suffer tragic and humiliating defeat, as we have been witnessing again in Kabul.
Tough questions
The tough questions being asked now – especially in the six countries neighbouring Afghanistan – are about how things will unfold in the months and years to come, and which camp will the soon-to-be-formed Second Taliban Emirate stand in. There are no easy answers, but a number of factors need to be considered.
First, Al-Qaida in its former guise will not be returning to Afghanistan. Its leader Osama Bin-Laden was assassinated by the Americans. Mullah Muhammad Omar, the former Taliban leader who gave him sanctuary in gratitude for the sacrifices made by the Arab mujahideen, is also dead.
Afghanistan’s new rulers will be much more concerned to gain regional and international support for their legitimacy and state. But it cannot be ruled out that a new terrorist group may emerge under the auspices of the U.S., using the grievances of the Uyghur minority in China to recruit jihadists.
Secondly, there is a risk of renewed sectarian or ethnic civil war. Regional powers like Iran, Russia, India and Turkey – not to mention the U.S. and China – may try to exploit differences between religious, tribal or ethnic groups to play out their rivalries. The Taliban have tried to reassure most of these powers by sending envoys to their capitals. A delegation was in Beijing earlier this month to affirm that a Taliban-led government would not allow any foreign power (meaning the U.S.) to use Afghan territory to destabilise China or support Uyghur militants.
Third, both Russia and Iran discretely provided support to the Taliban, including funds and weapons, in their war against the U.S. occupation. The movement is unlikely to join any alliances against them, or to alienate Russia by destabilising Tajikistan or Iran by persecuting the Shia.
Finally, the Taliban’s founder and principal sponsor and ally is Pakistan. They can be expected to be guided by Islamabad’s geopolitical compass and follow its lead in forging alliances. At present, Pakistan has strong relations with both Iran and Turkey and stands in the same trench as China (which is why the U.S. drastically cut its aid to the country).
U.S. media reports of a power-struggle between rival wings of the Taliban are probably wishful thinking. The movement appears united under Mulla Abdul Ghani Baradar and there are no sign of internal splits.
We cannot foretell what might happen in future, but that could well depend on what the U.S. does. If it opts to wreak military revenge on the Taliban, the entire movement could transform into a new Al-Qaida and take the battle to America and its presence and bases worldwide.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2021/08/17/what-will-the-second-taliban-emirate-look-like/
More comment and analysis
The Taliban and the new Afghanistan | The Big Picture
The US/UK have suffered theIr worst military defeat in decades at the hands of the Taliban. So what is the West's legacy in Afghanistan and what does the future hold for the nation? Join us at 6.30pm on Monday August 16 with guests Moazzam Begg and Yvonne Ridley.
Taliban are Victorious: Weekly Q&A w/ Bilal Abdul Kareem
More comment.
Last edited:
Salaam
Western media have launched a PR campaign against the Taliban.
MEDIA WAR WITH THE TALIBAN
Agree or disagree with them, we need to make sure the news we get it honest and balanced. Let us make up our own minds.
The seculars and their variants have all gone into collective meltdown, amusing to watch - to summarise their position.
Western media have launched a PR campaign against the Taliban.
MEDIA WAR WITH THE TALIBAN
Agree or disagree with them, we need to make sure the news we get it honest and balanced. Let us make up our own minds.
The seculars and their variants have all gone into collective meltdown, amusing to watch - to summarise their position.
Last edited:
The Taliban seem to be doing well. Will they have a Caliphate? Some other Emirates seem to be very Zionist and sycophantic to the West and become very Cultural Marxist. Will the Taliban get rid of all those Cultural Marxists and fake Christian social engineering organisations of the globalist liberal tyranny (aka "The international community")? This includes NGOs such as Tear Fund, World Vision, Save The Children, Doctors Without Borders etc etc? I heard on Aljoozeera the Taliban were negotiating with UNECEF and allowing them to stay. So is the fox still in the hen house?
Salaam
No it will be a Emirate - they have endured 40 years of conflict - they want peace, stablity and law and order, time to rebuild. They will need outside help intitally but hopefully they will be able to stand on their own two feet in time and not become too dependent on others.
Meanwhile
Wont be seeing this on mainstream news.
No it will be a Emirate - they have endured 40 years of conflict - they want peace, stablity and law and order, time to rebuild. They will need outside help intitally but hopefully they will be able to stand on their own two feet in time and not become too dependent on others.
Meanwhile
Wont be seeing this on mainstream news.
Last edited:
Eusra Fhaad inshaAllah
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 17
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
What is Paki PM saying -his stance?
Salaam
Hes happy with the current state of affairs, Imran Khan has said numerous times over the past decade + that a POLITICAL not miliatry solution between the various groups in Afghanistan is the only way forward.
Hes happy with the current state of affairs, Imran Khan has said numerous times over the past decade + that a POLITICAL not miliatry solution between the various groups in Afghanistan is the only way forward.
Last edited:
Salaam
Ha ha ha Ha Ha HA HA HA HA - the pathetic Bliar gives his 'considered' opinion.
Afghanistan: Tony Blair slams President Biden for 'imbecilic' military pullout and says crisis risks relegating UK to 'second division of global powers'
The former prime minister, who sent British troops into Afghanistan in 2001, said the "abandonment of Afghanistan and its people is tragic, dangerous [and] unnecessary".
Tony Blair has dramatically broken his silence over the crisis in Afghanistan by accusing President Biden of an "imbecilic" decision to pull out US troops. In a controversial verdict on the unfolding tragedy, he also claims the crisis reveals that the UK risks being relegated to "the second division of global powers". He blames Britain being "out of Europe and "little or no consultation" by "our greatest ally", the United States, for the UK's declining influence in the world.
And in a brutal attack on President Biden's abrupt withdrawal of US troops, he claims it is obvious that the decision to withdraw was not driven by grand strategy but by politics. "We didn't need to do it," Mr Blair writes. "We chose to do it. We did it in obedience to an imbecilic political slogan about ending 'the forever wars'." His attacks - especially his reference to Brexit - may delight his supporters but will infuriate critics, who will claim his record on Iraq and Afghanistan has left him discredited
The hard-hitting assessment of the Taliban takeover by Mr Blair, who as PM also sent British troops into Afghanistan in 2001, comes in a lengthy article for his Institute for Global Change.
"The abandonment of Afghanistan and its people is tragic, dangerous, unnecessary, not in their interests and not in ours," the former PM writes.
"As the leader of our country when we took the decision to join America in removing the Taliban from power, and who saw the high hopes we had of what we could achieve for the people and the world, subside under the weight of bitter reality, I know better than most how difficult are the decisions of leadership and how easy it is to be critical and how hard to be constructive."
In his attack on President Biden, Mr Blair writes: "Russia, China and Iran will see and take advantage. Anyone given commitments by Western Leaders will understandably regard them as unstable currency.
"We did it because our politics seemed to demand it. And that's the worry of our allies and the source of rejoicing in those who wish us ill. They think Western politics is broken."
In criticism aimed at Donald Trump as well as President Biden, Mr Blair claims "the deep politicisation of foreign policy and security issues" is weakening American power.n He adds: "And for Britain, out of Europe and suffering the end of the Afghanistan mission by our greatest ally with little or no consultation, we have serious reflection to do.
"We don't see it yet. But we are at risk of relegation to the second division of global powers. Maybe we don't mind. But we should at least take the decision deliberatively."
He adds: "If the West wants to shape the 21st Century it will take commitment. Through thick and thin. When it's rough as well as easy. Making sure allies have confidence and opponents caution.
"It will require parts of the right in politics to understand that isolation in an interconnected world is self-defeating; and parts of the left to accept that intervention can sometimes be necessary to uphold our values."
On what needs to happen now, Mr Blair writes: "We must evacuate and give sanctuary to those to whom we have responsibility - those Afghans who helped us and stood by us and have a right to demand we stand by them.
"There must be no repetition of arbitrary deadlines. We have a moral obligation to keep at it until all those who need to be are evacuated. And we should do so not grudgingly but out of a deep sense of humanity and responsibility.
"We need then to work out a means of dealing with the Taliban and exerting maximum pressure on them. This is not as empty as it seems. We have given up much of our leverage, but we retain some.
"The Taliban will face very difficult decisions and likely divide deeply over them. The country, its finances and its public sector workforce are significantly dependent on aid notably from the USA, Japan, the UK and others. The average age of the population is 18. A majority of Afghans have known freedom and not known the Taliban regime. They will not all conform quietly." And turning to what Mr Johnson must do, he adds: "The UK as the current G7 chair should convene a Contact Group of the G7 and other key nations and commit to coordinating help to the Afghan people and holding the new regime to account. NATO - which has had 8,000 troops still in Afghanistan alongside the USA - and Europe should be brought fully into cooperation under this grouping.
"We need to draw up a list of incentives, sanctions, actions we can take including to protect the civilian population so the Taliban understand their actions will have consequences. This is urgent."
https://news.sky.com/story/afghanis...-to-second-division-of-global-powers-12387017
Amazing this warmongering clown can say this all with a straightface. Mind you some tidbits of truth - His thinking on Islam and Muslims similiar to this
He sees the writing on the wall - Hes also worried about
A reminder of his record
Ahhh perhaps this why hes upset with the current situation.
Ha ha ha Ha Ha HA HA HA HA - the pathetic Bliar gives his 'considered' opinion.
Afghanistan: Tony Blair slams President Biden for 'imbecilic' military pullout and says crisis risks relegating UK to 'second division of global powers'
The former prime minister, who sent British troops into Afghanistan in 2001, said the "abandonment of Afghanistan and its people is tragic, dangerous [and] unnecessary".
Tony Blair has dramatically broken his silence over the crisis in Afghanistan by accusing President Biden of an "imbecilic" decision to pull out US troops. In a controversial verdict on the unfolding tragedy, he also claims the crisis reveals that the UK risks being relegated to "the second division of global powers". He blames Britain being "out of Europe and "little or no consultation" by "our greatest ally", the United States, for the UK's declining influence in the world.
And in a brutal attack on President Biden's abrupt withdrawal of US troops, he claims it is obvious that the decision to withdraw was not driven by grand strategy but by politics. "We didn't need to do it," Mr Blair writes. "We chose to do it. We did it in obedience to an imbecilic political slogan about ending 'the forever wars'." His attacks - especially his reference to Brexit - may delight his supporters but will infuriate critics, who will claim his record on Iraq and Afghanistan has left him discredited
The hard-hitting assessment of the Taliban takeover by Mr Blair, who as PM also sent British troops into Afghanistan in 2001, comes in a lengthy article for his Institute for Global Change.
"The abandonment of Afghanistan and its people is tragic, dangerous, unnecessary, not in their interests and not in ours," the former PM writes.
"As the leader of our country when we took the decision to join America in removing the Taliban from power, and who saw the high hopes we had of what we could achieve for the people and the world, subside under the weight of bitter reality, I know better than most how difficult are the decisions of leadership and how easy it is to be critical and how hard to be constructive."
In his attack on President Biden, Mr Blair writes: "Russia, China and Iran will see and take advantage. Anyone given commitments by Western Leaders will understandably regard them as unstable currency.
"We did it because our politics seemed to demand it. And that's the worry of our allies and the source of rejoicing in those who wish us ill. They think Western politics is broken."
In criticism aimed at Donald Trump as well as President Biden, Mr Blair claims "the deep politicisation of foreign policy and security issues" is weakening American power.n He adds: "And for Britain, out of Europe and suffering the end of the Afghanistan mission by our greatest ally with little or no consultation, we have serious reflection to do.
"We don't see it yet. But we are at risk of relegation to the second division of global powers. Maybe we don't mind. But we should at least take the decision deliberatively."
He adds: "If the West wants to shape the 21st Century it will take commitment. Through thick and thin. When it's rough as well as easy. Making sure allies have confidence and opponents caution.
"It will require parts of the right in politics to understand that isolation in an interconnected world is self-defeating; and parts of the left to accept that intervention can sometimes be necessary to uphold our values."
On what needs to happen now, Mr Blair writes: "We must evacuate and give sanctuary to those to whom we have responsibility - those Afghans who helped us and stood by us and have a right to demand we stand by them.
"There must be no repetition of arbitrary deadlines. We have a moral obligation to keep at it until all those who need to be are evacuated. And we should do so not grudgingly but out of a deep sense of humanity and responsibility.
"We need then to work out a means of dealing with the Taliban and exerting maximum pressure on them. This is not as empty as it seems. We have given up much of our leverage, but we retain some.
"The Taliban will face very difficult decisions and likely divide deeply over them. The country, its finances and its public sector workforce are significantly dependent on aid notably from the USA, Japan, the UK and others. The average age of the population is 18. A majority of Afghans have known freedom and not known the Taliban regime. They will not all conform quietly." And turning to what Mr Johnson must do, he adds: "The UK as the current G7 chair should convene a Contact Group of the G7 and other key nations and commit to coordinating help to the Afghan people and holding the new regime to account. NATO - which has had 8,000 troops still in Afghanistan alongside the USA - and Europe should be brought fully into cooperation under this grouping.
"We need to draw up a list of incentives, sanctions, actions we can take including to protect the civilian population so the Taliban understand their actions will have consequences. This is urgent."
https://news.sky.com/story/afghanis...-to-second-division-of-global-powers-12387017
Amazing this warmongering clown can say this all with a straightface. Mind you some tidbits of truth - His thinking on Islam and Muslims similiar to this
He sees the writing on the wall - Hes also worried about
- Relegation of the UK to 'second division of global powers' - true but thats been happening for some time (particularly after Suez)
- His legacy - Yes its ruined
A reminder of his record
Ahhh perhaps this why hes upset with the current situation.
Last edited:
Everyone needs to remember that the Taliban financed its "Jihad" by selling Ephedra (used to make meth amphetamine) and heroin.
Afghanistan is not going to be some fundamentalist Islamic state. It will be a lawless narco-state ruled by brutal men who have misinterpreted both the Quran and many Hadiths, and who brutalize and kill innocent Muslims.
That being said, the Afghans should be able to run their country without foreign interference, and the US has no business there.
Afghanistan is not going to be some fundamentalist Islamic state. It will be a lawless narco-state ruled by brutal men who have misinterpreted both the Quran and many Hadiths, and who brutalize and kill innocent Muslims.
That being said, the Afghans should be able to run their country without foreign interference, and the US has no business there.
Salaam
I could believe that, but currently Taliban are in the process of banning drug production.
And they banned it in the past (before the invasion 2001).
The rest of your post is standard western propaganda we've been fed for decades, (no wonder they were defeated).
Listen to people who actually live (or have lived) there.
This country has been in conflict for +40 years Its been devastated, what do you expect? It will take a long time but hopefully peace and prosperity will be the result.
Your right about Americans and their hangers on leaving, good riddance.
No more social engineering programs. (Yeah I know its Tucker but he has a point)
No more having your country being used as the testing ground for advanced weapons
No more having to live under the shadow of the Drone, dealing with American lead or backed deathsquads
Australian ver
or dealing with loons like this
Some honesty.
Sanity
I could believe that, but currently Taliban are in the process of banning drug production.
And they banned it in the past (before the invasion 2001).
The rest of your post is standard western propaganda we've been fed for decades, (no wonder they were defeated).
Listen to people who actually live (or have lived) there.
This country has been in conflict for +40 years Its been devastated, what do you expect? It will take a long time but hopefully peace and prosperity will be the result.
Your right about Americans and their hangers on leaving, good riddance.
No more social engineering programs. (Yeah I know its Tucker but he has a point)
No more having your country being used as the testing ground for advanced weapons
No more having to live under the shadow of the Drone, dealing with American lead or backed deathsquads
Australian ver
or dealing with loons like this
Some honesty.
Sanity
Last edited: