Chaos As Kabul Falls

An image claimed to be from Kabul before the US started it all with operation cyclone, a CIA intervention to bring down the communist Afghan government of the 1970s...

 

Not sure that’s correct. The Taliban were a group that came to power in the 90s having crossed from Pakistan, where they were funded by the Saudis in hardline madrasahs, and aimed to oust the mujahideen. I think there’s an argument to be had that the US actions in the 80s provided the conditions a decade later for the Afghan population to accept and even welcome Taliban rule, but then that’s no different to the Soviets.

 

Quoting from the classics.

 

The Spanish Inquisition lasted from 1478 until 1834 although was less active towards the end of that period. Witches were routinely 'interviewed', found guilty under duress and then executed often by being burnt at the stake. From the 15th to 18th century. Both in Europe and North America. The Catholic Church decided that heliocentrism was heretical in 1615 and Galileo was convicted of that crime in 1633 and placed under house arrest until his death in 1642. The Catholic Church did not formerly 'wise-up' on the matter and accept Galileo was right until 1992!

Muhammad post-dates Jesus by some 500 years. Which makes Christianity some 500 years younger than Islam.

My point here is that, 500 years ago (at a similar point of development for Christianity as Islam is at now then?) we were doing plenty of evil stuff and being forced to believe in utter b.llocks. Only fairly recently have we somewhat got over all this b.llshit and adopted our current, increasingly secular, increasingly liberal Western world.

So is it reasonable then to require Islam to go through this process in double-quick time, and attempt to force it upon them, given that they are currently far behind both in development and on their own timescale.

I really hope it won't take them 500 years. They can hardly all be fully sheltered (particularly in their cities) from all the fun to be had west of the Urals. But maybe we are currently asking a bit too much of them.

 

I think this might be from the period before the Communist coup when Afghanistan was still a monarchy.

 

I do wonder if the Taliban may be in some ways different to what they were. Without question they will be cruel and harsh to opponents and impose an inflexible sharia law. But when they first fought the US and UK the internet was barely a thing and certainly not easily available on phones.

Since then the World will have shrunk. They cannot be so ignorant of Western or even Chinese ways of living and the changing roles of women.

There is a delicate balance to be sought in sanctioning their bad behaviour and opening them up with trade. They are just people and all people can become peaceful when they have security and the means to live.

But at the moment we don’t know how real their promises to respect human rights are. As soon as the World’s attention looks away they may start a killing spree. Let’s hope they’ve had enough of conflict.

 

The original invasion to replace the Taliban government of Afghanistan was to remove the sanctuary it offered to al Quaeda, and to disrupt the opium trade used to fund both organisations. That was achieved, but the Pashtun Taliban insurgency never went away and after twenty years, the voters in the west had forgotten it was about al Quaeda.

Trying to turn Afghanistan into a Islamic democratic society, through continued military and financial support was the delusion. It has a population of 38 million that has been constant flux for the last 50 years.

It looks clear that the corrupt government stole the money, with little thought to putting in the structures to challenge the Taliban insurgents. Hoping the US would carry on forever keeping them at bay. While they creamed off the cash. The US was paying for a 300,000 strong army which seems was actually only 50,000 strong!

The reality is the Taliban have had as much funding from Saudi Arabia as the Mujahideen coalition of anti soviet groups had from the US. I am not that clued up on the politics and societies of the Islamic world to say if the Taliban are more fundamentalist/traditional in their application of an Islamic society than say Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Afghanistan is significantly poorer than both.

The US and UK were rightly blamed for not putting in place an alternative to Sadam after the invasion of Iraq and creating a vacuum that led to chaos. They did try to put in place an alternative in Afghanistan. And that has seen less chaos, but no nation building.

The history of the country is that few ruling groups create a Hegemony for long. Soon the civil war will break out again, as it has done since the 1973 coup that replaced the monarchy, that led to the 1978 communist coup that led to the 1979 civil war that became a proxy war between the USSR the US. That led to the Taliban, and so on….

 

Something else to throw into the mix is the 'military' fall-out here in the UK. According, to what I assume are, very senior officers and civil servants on the ARRSE posting anonymously all of the last major engagements of UK forces have been heavily 'land' led (ie the green bit of UK forces) the blue bits (RAF, RN) are asking questions about how the army's senior management culture has contributed to the massive cost to the nation in blood and treasure.

Also people forget that Afghanistan is a true multi-ethnic state (realistic figures are still sketchy) - with significant ethnic populations from neighbouring populations along highly 'fluid' borders. One of those is in NE Afghanistan with China whose Turkic/Kirgiz/Uyghur populations are very closely related...

 

Keeping to Sharia Law, as promised by the Talban, doesn't mean that much in terms of specifics. Literally, Sharia means "The well-worn path to water", so plainly, it will all be about interpretation of the Koran. Sadly, that means that almost anything goes as it can be "interpreted" to suit the "needs" of men. If that includes keeping women subservient as downtrodden slaves, sexual or otherwise, at the whim of men enjoying such power, then that is what will happen as soon as the worlds gaze has eased off. The burkhas, or similar, are merely the soft and thin end of modern slavery in Islam.

So it will happen, regardless of what they say in the media now. Women and girls in Afghanistan will be very afraid right now, and rightly.

Let's not kid ourselves it will be any different from what it was before 2001 when women's fingers were cut off for wearing nail varnish. There is nothing we can acceptably do to prevent it.

When a current political leader is branded a racist, for merely suggesting that burkhas are symbols of subservience and are "ridiculous", there is absolutely no hope of any political leader actually trying to make a difference. It will all be hand-wringing and platitudes, maneuvering and dancing around the edges so as to not upset anyone, lest they be branded nasty racists. By stopping meaningful and honest dialogue, western culture has effectively declared such blatant and nasty sexism in Islam to be acceptable. It is why most of the recent official political public speaking around the subject has been about the "easier" subject of the rights of women and girl's to education, with very little mention of the fact that women and young girls are being forced into being wives for the Taliban to be used and abused with no prospect of freedom.

What about the rights of young girls that don't want to be suppressed and subserviently hidden under veils, unable to reasonably communicate normally (at best) or "legally" raped by men (at worse), either in Afghanistan, or in the west.

And in any case, it is apparently unacceptable and patronising for white people to have an opinion on black players kneeling at a football match, how can western non-muslims make judgements on Islamic culture. It would be similarly "patronising", wouldn't it? Maybe suppressed and enslaved Muslim women enjoy being treated like being suppressed and enslaved? Who are we to say otherwise?

Those that have been to Egypt on holiday, even in "westernised" resorts like Sharm or Hurghada, will see that every worker in management, in reception, every bar person or restaurant worker and cleaner, is a man. Women just don't have any sort of career. Keep them down, maybe they enjoy it?

Ooooh, it's too tricky, let's not talk about that aspect of Islamic culture. Let's concentrate on serious stuff, like sexist men in the west who have dared to compliment a female in the workplace - as that really does need to nipped in the bud. and double quick.

 

Just do one.

No one has any problem whatsoever talking about the awful repression of women under certain Islamic states.

People have a problem with it being considered Islam per se and hitching it in an opportunistic way to pathetic moans about Western political issues like inequality and racism.

You make some good points and undermine them with your constant need to blame and bait.

‘Handwringing’. What exactly else are you doing apart from finding yet another thread in which to excuse Boris Johnson?

 

Repression of women within Islam, is the same whether it is in Afghanistan or the UK.

A Burkha is a symbol of repression. If a politician implies that (any politician) then he runs the proven risk that he will be branded a racist. So how can any politician speak against it?

I'm looking at the bigger picture, as this problem will continue long after Johnstone or any other current politician has disappeared.

 

High emotions in Parliament. Theresa May criticises politicians who sent soldiers to Afghanistan and then let them down (wasn’t she one of them?). Asks why the UK was confident only a short while ago that the Taliban could not takeover. Was our intelligence so poor she asks.

However, Sir Desmond Swayne manages to unite the House (in loathing of Desmond Swayne) by suggesting that Afghans looking to flee should be leading the resistance rather than queuing at the airport. Nice.

 

Christianity is of course 500 years OLDER not younger than Islam b.t.w. A silly error in my previous post although the detail should have made it clear what a meant. I continue to think that this is an important consideration here. If it does take 2000 years to 'get over yourself' religion wise then I'm afraid Islam still has 'ways to go'.

 

Wearing a wedding ring or women changing their names are symbols of a previous state of affairs in the UK where rape within marriage was effectively legal until the 2003 act.

I think a Burkha is ridiculous personally, but I also believe that some women in the UK wear them as a choice. I don’t think it’s a good choice, but ultimately it’s their business. Overly concentrating on it doesn’t encourage people, in fact it appeared over the last decade or so to drive women towards it.

It’s also a poor choice to lead a discussion on Muslim values. It’s about as representative as the number of Christians who dress as nuns. I work with four Muslim women. They all dress like most other women in the Country and like a drink.

 

Are we blaming ourselves too much here? The original mission to deny Al-Qaeda the opportunity to train and then operate in the west was largely successful. The subsequent attempt at nation building in a country/region which the west little understands, or doesn't understand at all, was the big and ongoing mistake. And didn't pay any attention to previous failings. The far bigger mistake was going into Iraq and attempting to do the same. They posed little or no threat at all from the off.

If a 'have a go hero' steps in and prevents a street crime you'd praise them. If that person then gets to know the potential perpetrator and tries to convince them of the error of their ways and pays recognition to the reasons why they got there in the first place, you'd praise them for that too. If that attempt ultimately proved unsuccessful you wouldn't blame the 'Samaritan' for trying. You'd probably continue to praise them for having made an effort. If the original perpetrator then returned to a life of crime then it would be them you'd hold responsible for their actions. And you'd probably conclude that they just weren't ready yet for conversion.

Same sort of thing going on here?

 

I think we deserve to be blamed for dragging our heels over processing the asylum applications of the Afghan civilians that put their c0cks on the block by working alongside us as translators etc. We should also feel a little bit awkward that despite spending 20 years as an occupying force and with all the high-tech junk at our disposal our intelligence gathering was apparently so poor that we have been completely taken by surprise by the speed at which these ragamuffins have steamrollered their way to power. Other than that I'm not convinced that retaining a permanent presence would be hugely beneficial to anybody so I am not unhappy that we got out - I just wish we'd never gone in there in the first place as part of Bush and Blair's crusade but that's ancient history.

 

I don’t know about ancient history. It wasn’t so long after Vietnam before the US was up to it again. We went along with them on every occasion since. I wouldn’t put it past Johnson or Starmer or their successors to find a reason within a short timeframe.

 

We’ve been like a little puppy following the US around into every stupid escapade for years. It should end but it never will.

It was interesting to hear on several of the back bench speeches there hasn’t been a US or UK death in Afghanistan for 2 (or 3 can’t recall which) years. So what was so pressing about leaving again?

 

The aim of this thread was to avoid party politics and left/right wing politics.
Somehow you have managed to involve black footballers taking the knee and sexism in the workplace into a discussion about the taliban taking over Kabul.
No one else was talking about this.

 

Cost.

 

Especially if that cost was simply being trousered by the regime we were propping up.

 

Seriously?

The US had c2,500 troops or so there for the last year, I read less then the number of people at their London embassy.

Anyway, in other news, I read on twitter a bust up between 82 AB and 2 Para COs in Kabul, 82 won’t leave the airport, 2 Para are driving out to pick Afghans up from where they are hiding. Described as a full on ‘shouting match’.

 

Feb 2020 was the last time - 2 US soldiers killed.

https://heavy.com/news/2020/02/antonio-rey-rodriguez/

 

Yes so why the panic retreat?

I know the answer, US mid terms

 

In the house of commons, Theresa May stands up today and says:

"Was our intelligence really so poor? Was our understanding of the Afghan government so weak? Was our knowledge on the ground so inadequate? Or did we just think we had to follow the United States and on a wing and a prayer it would be all right on the night?”

I would suppose it'd be the second.

 

Deadwood gives a little speech blaming Biden, and T May hands him his scrawny racist arse, pointing out he is implementing a deal unilaterally negotiated and signed by Trump (I'm not absolving Biden in this btw, weak, weak, weak.)

 

On a slightly lighter note,

Rubber Dinghy Rapids, Bro!

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/taliban-fighters-enjoy-riding-bumper-cars-take-over-amusement-park/

 

Reports that Ghani fled to the UAE with at least $169m.

Shameful stuff if true.

 

Yes but I’m charging him $1m a night to sleep in my cellar.

 

Completely agree. Islam is a vile, brutal, controlling religion but it's exactly the same as Christianity and how that was applied centuries ago.

Islam will go the same way as Christianity as it is now, an indoctrinated minority who go to their clubhouse (church) once a week for a natter, a pray and to feel superior.

Religions are nothing more than successful cults and the great comfort is that in the modern age, with media and enlightenment, no others will start. Just have to wait for the existing ones to die out.

 

Do you have a minibar?

 

No. But he can at least catch up on his favourite programmes as we have no tele ban.

 

Just make sure he understands refuse separation rules here in the uk, bin men might not take a bin laden with the wrong rubbish

 

I think I know you... you're Justin Welby aren't you?

 

It’s not like peace was a given. It could have kicked off anytime, what with the endless backing of the Taliban by other regional powers.

And what about the harm they were doing there? The drone attacks that I think you have previously noted, the fact that they were propping up a corrupt regime that was probably not far off as capable of disappearing people as the Taliban?

Getting out was a good idea. Maybe with more international will another UN force could have kept the peace, but I doubt anyone else wanted to go. The only alternative appears to have been to stay forever, infidels inspiring more jihad.