Originally posted by Se7enex
Agreed. We sit here and call these people fighting our troops terrorists but all they are really doing is fighting against a foreign occupation. I am positive Americans would do the exact same. It's a tragedy that people actually go to war, especially one as unjust as this. If our soldiers lay down there guns, if everyone quit the army, I think the world might understand that we aren't so bad, we've just been brainwashed by the media to believe everything we are told.
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by NeverForget
Because you know the time it takes to defeat an army of guerilla fighters....You don't know anything really, you're just spewing nonsense.
History has shown that guerilla forces popular with the local population cannot be defeated... ESPECIALLY in the case of Afghanistan.
Either you are blissfully ignorant of Afghan history or you expect that things will miraculously turn out to be different this time around. Good luck with that.
How can you support a war but not against the unarmed civilians.
Originally posted by jerico65
And what do you call the Taliban in A-stan that throw acid on schoolgirls and blow up civilians with car bombs?
Originally posted by NeverForget
Give it time.
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by nenothtu
If they are Jihadists, I want them dead - too dead to stink. I don't care, not even a little bit, where they are from, or where they are at right now. I only care what they are doing or planning to do.
US presence in Afghanistan = More people turn into Jihadis.
This can only lead to perpetual conflict with no end in sight.
If thats what you want, then well... a former US president also had the same way of looking at things.
Alexander won in Afghanistan. Genghis won in Afghanistan. Afghans are not "undefeatable", and neither is the US. It's all in the approach.
Alexander, Genghis Khan, the British and the Soviets all effortlessly stormed into Afghanistan. Yes.
The problems showed up AFTER they set foot on Afghan soil... and they had to leave in the end.
Not... very different from the US' situation there.
It is literally in the eye of the beholder.lI ts What the Afghan report's suppressed annex indicates, however, is a brutality by MOSCOW~S troops on an appalling scale. Thousands of children have been killed by Soviet bombs disguised as toys; gas and chemical weapons have been used against civilians; and torture is common at interrogation centers of the Moscow-controlled Afghan secret police, the Khad. The torture involves pulling out fingernails, as well as systematic beating and psychological pressure and Afghan government and Soviet troops try to seal border areas to prevent Afghans from fleeing The U.N. censored report presents, in fact, a very conservative picture of Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan. According to its author 1. See Mark Huber Moscow*s Bastion in Manhattan: The U.N. Department of Conference Services Heritage Foundation Backarounder No. 51 8, June 20, 1986........... While many egregious human rights violations were also committed by the Afghan soldiers, Ermacora emphasizes that most of the atrocities described in his report and%particularly in the censored annex, were committed by the Soviets.
Pul-e-Charkhi (Persian: زندان پل چرخی), also known as Afghan National Detention Facility, is the largest prison in Afghanistan east of Kabul. Construction of the jail began in the 1970s by order of former president Mohammed Daoud Khan and was completed during the 1980s. The prison became notorious for torture and executions after the 1978 Saur Revolution as well as during the 10 year Soviet war that followed. Between April 1978 and the Soviet invasion of December 1979, the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) under Nur Muhammad Taraki executed around 27,000 political prisoners at Pul-i-Charki.
They became pissed at the US when the Soviets withdrewe because we ended support to the Muhajadeen units, which included Bin Laden. This would be when Bin Laden went off the Us bandwagon and wanted us dead because we refused to support his power play.
Bin Ladens anger with the US started when we stopped providing support. His issues with American troops in Saudi shouldhave been directed at the Saudi government for allowing the Us presence. Im not sure why the blame is so contained to the US while other government involvement is ignored.
Nation building was never an option during the Soviet invasion. We provided arms and sams to counter the air/helicopter threat, where the soviets had the advantage. Once that ended, we left and didnt look back since itts was a cold war proxy to an extent.
We have no more troops in Saudi Arabia, which was one of the main goals Bin Laden set out with. We have one airwing unit left in Saudi at their request, so the argument of US presence in a country that contains 2 of their holiest sites doesnt hold water anymore.
You mean the population will decrease if the US leaves?
it's not a matter of what I want, it's a matter of what IS. We either fight back or go extinct.