Jump to content

Meanwhile In Afghanistan


Panzermann
 Share

Recommended Posts

very neatly done, a good way to change the topic to blame the individual troopers.  Carefully done you can use that to justify the deaths of the US KIA.  Comrade Xi would be proud of you.

 

Stuart, you are correct.  I overlooked that bit about them already being there.  It stands to reason I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It could not be used to absolve anyone. If true the incident is more, not less embarrassing to the leadership.

The fatal error was, after having knowledge of an imminent attack on the gates, not dispersing those massed around the gates. Probably it should have been closed and those on the UK evacuation list (some of whom are now dead) gotten out by some alternative method. Then you would have a few troops guarding a closed checkpoint, which of course can still be attacked, but such an attack will not result in 100 + dead.

Further up the responsibility can be attributed to leaving the evacuation so late, one which in this case is shared by the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pressuring foreign national leaders, isn't that an impeachable offense?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9945031/Biden-told-Afghan-President-needed-change-perception-Talibans-rapid-advance.html

Quote

President Joe Biden wanted the now-departed Afghan president to create the 'perception' that his government was capable of holding off the Taliban - an indication he knew it was only a matter of time before the US ally fell to the Islamic group even while reassuring Americans at home that it would not happen. 

In the last phone call between Biden and his Afghan then-counterpart Ashraf Ghani, the American president said they needed to change perceptions of the Taliban's rapid advance 'whether it is true or not,' according to excerpts published on Tuesday.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isnt there some law in your country about deliberately losing a war and handing a country over to your enemies? Or does it only apply in the CONUS?

So 13 years ago, Biden and Kerry were lost in a force landed Blackhawk in a snowstorm in Afghanistan, and the 82nd Airborne had to go out to rescue them. In one of the vehicles was an Afghan interpreter. Whom it seems was just left behind with his family.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/interpreter-who-helped-rescue-joe-biden-during-afghan-storm-left-behind-in-kabul/ar-AANX5eY?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Just goes to show I guess, no good deed goes unpunished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Sardaukar said:

As from personal experience, everyone wanting to go to A-stan needs to have pretty good backup or pretty good trust to his/her belief system...

This will interest you: https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2021/09/some-boots-on-ground-information-out-of.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I still wince when I read the end titles of Rambo 3, dedicated to the freedom fighters of Afghanistan. Yikes.

Thatcher even addressed some large meeting of them and made some speech about how they were defending the free world.
 


 

Edited by KV7
added video
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Margaret Thatcher was busy sending in the Police to kick the snot out of Socialist Trade Unionists, at pretty much the same time as she was praising Lech Walensa and Solidarity, Socialist Trade Unionists, for their commitment to freedom.

Most politicians have a somewhat under developed sense of reality when you get down to it, and Afghanistan I guess is a prime example of it I suppose.  Both the guys who got us in, and the guys who got us out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know that Taliban and Mujahideen are not really the same, do not you? I mean, even Wikipedia differentiate between them.

Next thing you will discover is Saddam's Iraqi Army being equipped with M60A3 tanks, M16A1 rifles, M109 SPGs, Cobra attack choppers, etc.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if we want to split straws the Taliban are arguably the superior element of the mujahedin, because they at least wanted to end the period of warlordism and create some sort of unified state, whereas quite a lot of the other factions were happy with opium feudalism, and others ended up as terror groups or 'rent a Jihad' mercenary bands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, sunday said:

You know that Taliban and Mujahideen are not really the same, do not you? I mean, even Wikipedia differentiate between them.

Next thing you will discover is Saddam's Iraqi Army being equipped with M60A3 tanks, M16A1 rifles, M109 SPGs, Cobra attack choppers, etc.

But they arent wholly different either. The Mujaheddin, at least early on, included many of the urban elites, the disaffected former Army Officers. The Taliban seemingly emerged largely from the border regions, and the refugees.

However, I dont think its that cut and dried. We have already seen the Afghan Army fled to the arms of the Taliban when they understood they are losing. Ive no doubt some Mujahideen commanders would have done the same if they valued their necks during the civil war. And at least in one case, the founder of the Taliban, he actually WAS a  Mujahid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Omar

The Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan, a not insignificant post, was also former Mujahideen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Salam_Zaeef

This drawing of a comfortable line between the 'Good Guy' Mujahideen and the badboy Taliban, it clearly has some validity when you are looking at people like Ahmed Shah Massoud. In other cases, I dont believe its that neat a division, there very clearly was a number of defections.

 

 

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, KV7 said:

Well if we want to split straws the Taliban are arguably the superior element of the mujahedin, because they at least wanted to end the period of warlordism and create some sort of unified state, whereas quite a lot of the other factions were happy with opium feudalism, and others ended up as terror groups or 'rent a Jihad' mercenary bands.

It is not wanting to split straws. Mullah Omar founded the Taliban in 1994, and the last Russian left Afghanistan in 1989. There were no Taliban around when Thatcher gave that speech in 1981, 13 (thirteen years!) before the foundation of the Taliban. Using the same cavalier approach to History, the Russian revolution of 1905 was also a Communist revolution, as both were done against the Russian Government, and there were "only" 12 years in between.

Stop trying to convince us that you put your dick in the sausage grinder for fun, please.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Steven P Allen said:

"Who do you think this man is?  [Sneer]  God?"

"No.  God would have mercy.  He won't."

Its a bloody awful film, but I still enjoy it. Ive no shame. :)

I remember a documentary showing Soviet Soldiers in the dying days of the Afghan war, saying they loved Rambo films, as action comedy. Which is probably the right spirit to watch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, sunday said:

It is not wanting to split straws. Mullah Omar founded the Taliban in 1994, and the last Russian left Afghanistan in 1989. There were no Taliban around when Thatcher gave that speech in 1981, 13 (thirteen years!) before the foundation of the Taliban. Using the same cavalier approach to History, the Russian revolution of 1905 was also a Communist revolution, as both were done against the Russian Government, and there were "only" 12 years in between.

Stop trying to convince us that you put your dick in the sausage grinder for fun, please.

The tallywhackers were the answer to the 'chaos' that gripped 'The 'Stan' --sure the ISI probably sponsored them but the chaos was on the Pakistani border.

Anyway, The 'shifting' British News Take on many things has put me off from reading my old fave 'The Economist':

During the 80s the Economist was in support of the Afghan fighters against the USSR as well as a tangential cold war effort in Chad against Libya. Then in the late, late, late 2010s, the editorials and stories spoke of the 'Odious Mujihiddine' , and had a story about the trial of Hissene Habre for 'war crimes' and how the US 'supported him' for his opposition to 'alleged Libyan Involvement' in Chad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, NickM said:

The tallywhackers were the answer to the 'chaos' that gripped 'The 'Stan' --sure the ISI probably sponsored them but the chaos was on the Pakistani border.

Anyway, The 'shifting' British News Take on many things has put me off from reading my old fave 'The Economist':

During the 80s the Economist was in support of the Afghan fighters against the USSR as well as a tangential cold war effort in Chad against Libya. Then in the late, late, late 2010s, the editorials and stories spoke of the 'Odious Mujihiddine' , and had a story about the trial of Hissene Habre for 'war crimes' and how the US 'supported him' for his opposition to 'alleged Libyan Involvement' in Chad.

Also, do not forget Baroness Thatcher, the original HandbagWoman Bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...