Afghanistan

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
clakclak
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sun, 13. Jul 08, 19:29
x3

Re: Afghanistan

Post by clakclak » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 08:48

Vertigo 7 wrote:
Fri, 17. Sep 21, 22:45
[...]I can certainly understand why the strike occurred.

It's unfortunate that circumstances lead to where they did. I'm sorry for the families that lost their loved ones.
I do not agree with this assessment of the situation. The Biden administration said it wanted to take revenge for the Americans killed in the Airport attack, thus I assume they put pressure on the military to find a good target. The military then hastily decided to bomb what may with a lot of luck be a military target and celebrate the, like you put it in an earlier comment "160 saved lives", only that no lives were saved as the targets were simply normal people going about their day.

The worst part is: If it had not been for Journalists investigating the strike and throwing up doubts that the official version was wrong, I am 100% sure this would all have been swept under the rug and people would have trusted the US military completely. Hell you Vertigo were 100% convinced that this was an attack against terrorists even after reports came out that gave a very reasonable different angle. A bit more distrust towards those in power might be healthy.

The US government with access to the information of multiple well funded security agencies learned about who the victims were after the New Yorks Times? Come on. They knew before the Times published its report that they had bombed innocents.

At the end of the day this drone strike is a good summary for the entire war. A hastily executed affair, suffering from a lack of information and a stunning disregard for the value of a human life, by all participating parties (edit, and yes ALL parties does include ESPECIALLY the Taliban and ISIS as they have shown an unbelievable willingness to kill civilians).
Last edited by clakclak on Sat, 18. Sep 21, 10:43, edited 2 times in total.
"The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn't have the weight of gender expectations." - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: Afghanistan

Post by BaronVerde » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 10:38

Thabk you, @Vertigo7 for informing us, and @clakclak for saying what much of the world thinks about this case.

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

matthewfarmery
Posts: 3674
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 17:49
x3

Re: Afghanistan

Post by matthewfarmery » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 13:22

Like I said in my previous post, I was very less inclined to believe the US military regarding the target. The US are very well known for lashing out and getting things wrong. From the Gulf war, (probably earlier) to this. American just wanted revenge. I also think if there wasn't much pressure from the NY times, then this would have been brushed under the carpet, and we would only have the US military word that it was a hostile target.

RIP for those victims, but its little wonder that the country in general just wanted to see the US gone. As the whole war was nothing short of a mistake, and poorly thought out from the beginning.
=

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Vertigo 7 » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 14:49

Just because the US gets things wrong on occasion, that hardly means they get things wrong all the time or even most of the time. Events like these are the exception, not the rule and it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: Afghanistan

Post by BaronVerde » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 15:15

Killing and maiming innocent people with drones happen frequently, though exact numbers are hard if not impossible to get. They vary between 0.2% and 90%, so nothing is really known for sure, not even by those who carry them out. And this one here was a total failure. By many, drone strikes with civilian casualties are regarded as war crimes. These strikes also traumatise the civilian population in the countries where they are carried out, for instance in Lybia, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. Which is a tolerated result. The Afghan civilian governmant under Hamid Karzai demanded the US stop the strikes, but they wouldn't listen, making the strikes an unsanctioned aggression.

As a counter example, when Europe ended the wars and ethnic cleanings in the balkans many of the responsibles were brought to justice before the court in Den Haag. Now people, including muslims, can live in peace there.

Opinion:
This is how civilized people should behave. It would be a good sign to the civilized world if the US would join the treaty of the International Criminal Court, and stop intimidating, prosecuting and harrassing their lawyers. Clearing past war crimes and preventing future ones could certainly help with letting people live in peace, not only but also in Afghanistan.

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Vertigo 7 » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 15:37

clakclak wrote:
Sat, 18. Sep 21, 08:48
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Fri, 17. Sep 21, 22:45
[...]I can certainly understand why the strike occurred.

It's unfortunate that circumstances lead to where they did. I'm sorry for the families that lost their loved ones.
I do not agree with this assessment of the situation. The Biden administration said it wanted to take revenge for the Americans killed in the Airport attack, thus I assume they put pressure on the military to find a good target. The military then hastily decided to bomb what may with a lot of luck be a military target and celebrate the, like you put it in an earlier comment "160 saved lives", only that no lives were saved as the targets were simply normal people going about their day.

The worst part is: If it had not been for Journalists investigating the strike and throwing up doubts that the official version was wrong, I am 100% sure this would all have been swept under the rug and people would have trusted the US military completely. Hell you Vertigo were 100% convinced that this was an attack against terrorists even after reports came out that gave a very reasonable different angle. A bit more distrust towards those in power might be healthy.
I absolutely do stand by my statements at the time for several reasons.

1, reporters are not experts in military tactics or forensic evidence (half the time they're not even experts in journalism). That was evidenced by their insistence that there was no 2ndary explosion, carrying on like the car was hit with a cruise missile, when it absolutely wasn't the case. Not to mention, reporters rarely, if ever, get access to intelligence reports. The last people I would expect to have the full picture are reporters in any situation involving military operations. I assume you noticed that all of their reporting came entirely from civilians in and around the area where the strike occurred.

2, The US military does not knowingly or arbitrarily order attacks on civilian targets. Every bit of their intel told them this was their guy and he very easily could have been. I, for one, am glad I'm not in the position to make a decision on whether or not I should launch a strike because I can't say for sure I would have made any different decision given the circumstances.

Here's the thing. Yeah, Biden said he wanted to take revenge against ISIS for the suicide bombing that killed 13 US service members and 160 Afghan civilians. That was a statement aimed at ISIS, not an order given to the joint chiefs. The US military still abides by the rules of engagement, in this case, section 2, paragraph 2e and 3 of the SROE and SUOF very much applied. The military is not allowed to deviate from that and "revenge" is not part of the doctrine.

It's easy to armchair quarterback after an event has occurred. Again, I'll point out that these mistakes are the exception, not the rule and the US military gets it right far more often than things like this happen.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: Afghanistan

Post by BaronVerde » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 15:56

Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 18. Sep 21, 15:37
Again, I'll point out that these mistakes are the exception, not the rule and the US military gets it right far more often than things like this happen.
It is unclear how often drone strikes hit civilians, victims could be as high as 90% (debated and unclear). Anyway, killing innocent civilians is a war crime. Drone strikes in Afghanistan are also an unsanctioned aggression of the US, as the Afghans have asked them to stop. The US is also not member of the ICC and is actively suppressing its work and harrassing its members, making it easier for the US to act in an unlawful manner and not being brought to justice.

That's the other side. The outside view so to say.

And again, I do think that there's a much bigger chance of peace if the rhetoric of retribution stops and people start talking. There's much more to gain, as the situation on the Balkans have shown. And to be clear, the military in genral, not individuals or groups among them, be it US or whomever, isn't half as humanitarian as they would like themselves to be seen.

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Vertigo 7 » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 16:08

You can't back up your claim of 90% civilian casualties. Do you even have an exact accounting of how many drone strikes have occurred? How can that even possibly be true and no one is making an issue of it? Here you are getting up in arms just over 7 casualties. I'm quite sure the blow back would be astronomical if that was even remotely possible.

You also can't back up your accusation of a war crime. No court will find intent. Furthermore, the Afghanistan government no longer exists so how can they ask for something?
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: Afghanistan

Post by BaronVerde » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 16:52

Ok, pls. understand that this is not meant personal, you are not my enemy, @Vertigo7. But fighting and killing in Afghanistan or elsewere just is not right and does not solve a single problem, of that I am deeply convinced. I kindly ask to please take a breath and sleep one night before reacting.
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 18. Sep 21, 16:08
You can't back up your claim of 90% civilian casualties.
Search "The Intercept - Drone Papers". As I said, it is unclear and debated. And there are other sources, in conjunction with a German appeal to their high court that the US forces stop their drone strikes controlled from German territory. In the end I believe it was ruled that German has no obligation to ensure that the US act in conformity with international law.

Edit: just to make that clear, I do not claim that 90% to be true, I said civil casualties are between 0.2% and 90%, unclear and debated. So you could es well say I have no source for 0.2%. That is true, it was mentioned as the lower end in a military assessment whose link I have not saved.
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 18. Sep 21, 16:08
Do you even have an exact accounting of how many drone strikes have occurred?
I have indeed: far too many.
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 18. Sep 21, 16:08
How can that even possibly be true and no one is making an issue of it?
People are, worldwide. You must have missed it, but you can set out on a research.
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 18. Sep 21, 16:08
Here you are getting up in arms just over 7 casualties.
I am not in arms. But I would raise my voice over a single one. And I find that to be human behaviour since hundreds of thousands of years.
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 18. Sep 21, 16:08
I'm quite sure the blow back would be astronomical if that was even remotely possible.
If they'd strike in Russia or China then yes, that would be sporty, then. But the people in those poor countries like Afghanistan simply have no chance to avoid, escape or react to the terror from above. And every drone strike can produce new terrorists, that is the problem, I am convoinced, if this aggression doesn't stop.
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 18. Sep 21, 16:08
You also can't back up your accusation of a war crime.
Yes. Killing innocent civilians is a war crime. Just like torturing prisoners of war, like in Guantanamo Bay.
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 18. Sep 21, 16:08
No court will find intent.
Yes, they would. That's why the US doesn't join the ICC. They fear or want to avoid being dragged before them for their actions. In Italy, a country with a well functioning law enforcement, the responsible were flown out to avoid prosecution after the cable car incident.
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 18. Sep 21, 16:08
Furthermore, the Afghanistan government no longer exists so how can they ask for something?
Hamid Karzai's government did so. This is past tense, but of course extends into the present. Even the Taliban said they had not been asked before the strike, but of course they don't have the means to prevent a strike.


In the end, it all boils down to "one doesn't kill innocent people". That's a very fundamental rule of human behaviour and anchored in most societies' basic laws, right in the first paragraphs.

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Vertigo 7 » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 17:28

Ahh, now it makes sense. The Intercept is your source... Quality reporting always comes out of them :roll: The left wings very own Qanon.

I'm quite sure there are some people that gets their panties in a bunch every time someone in the US farts, but that means next to nothing, like your accusation of a war crime. Intent matters as is clearly defined in Geneva Conventions, as well as any court of law, both nationally and internationally. And again, you cannot prove intent.

If every time a civilian was killed in a military operation, and someone was tried and convicted of a war crime, no country in the world would have a military. As a matter of fact, it is internationally recognized that civilian casualties in war are to be expected. You don't have to like it, but that's war. Compound that of the difficulties of fighting against terrorists within civilian populations, it's a practical guarantee that there will be civilian casualties. Making the blanket statement that "killing of civilians" is a war crime is unequivocally false.

Your example of the people being tried after engaging in ethnic cleansings... yep, war crime. They intended on genocide. The US isn't arbitrarily bombing neighborhoods and killing anyone who looks middle eastern - that would absolutely be a war crime.

I know you just want the US to be the bad guy, and fine. If it helps you sleep better to think that way, be my guest.

Are we perfect? No, of course not. We've made mistakes. Continuing this prolonged engagement in Afghanistan was one of them. But you are wholly mischaracterizing the nature of war, and the US military.
Last edited by Vertigo 7 on Sat, 18. Sep 21, 17:31, edited 1 time in total.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

matthewfarmery
Posts: 3674
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 17:49
x3

Re: Afghanistan

Post by matthewfarmery » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 17:28

Regarding the ICC

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/02/qa- ... d-states#2

Ad also under the Trump administration, Trump threatened any member of the ICC who would investigate any war crimes against America.

these two questions and answers from the FAQ are interesting

...............

6. Hasn’t the US already investigated alleged abuses by US military and CIA personnel in Afghanistan?


The US has conducted some investigations into alleged abuses by US personnel in Afghanistan, but they were limited in scope. In 2009, the US Department of Justice opened an investigation into 101 cases of alleged detainee abuse by the CIA, including the cases of two detainees who died in CIA custody, but no charges were brought. Human Rights Watch found no evidence that the investigators interviewed any victims of CIA torture. Moreover, the investigation was limited to abuses that went beyond the interrogation methods authorized by the Justice Department. Many of the authorized techniques were abusive – some clearly amounting to torture – and should have been included. A 2014 report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the CIA covered up its crimes, including by making false claims to the Justice Department. The 6,700-page Senate report remains classified, but a redacted version of the 525-page summary shows that abusive CIA interrogation methods were far more brutal, systematic, and widespread than previously reported.

It is harder to evaluate the extent to which torture by the US military in Afghanistan has been investigated and prosecuted. In 2015, the United States reported to the UN Committee Against Torture that the armed forces had begun 70 investigations into detainee abuse that resulted in trial by courts-martial, but no time period was provided, and no further information was publicly available.

7. What has been the US relationship with the ICC?

In the early years of the ICC, the George W. Bush administration led a hostile campaign against the court. For instance, the Bush administration pressured governments around the world to enter into bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender US nationals to the ICC. But these efforts did little more than erode US credibility on international justice and gradually gave way to a more supportive US posture, starting in 2005. The US did not veto a UN Security Council request to the ICC prosecutor to investigate crimes in Darfur, Sudan in 2005 and it voted for the UN Security Council referral of the situation in Libya to the court in 2011.

US support was critical in the transfer to the court of ICC suspects Bosco Ntaganda, a Congolese rebel leader, in 2012 and Dominic Ongwen, a Lord’s Resistance Army commander, in 2015. In 2013, the US Congress expanded its existing war crimes rewards program to provide rewards to people providing information to facilitate the arrest of foreign individuals wanted by any international court or tribunal, including the ICC.


................

I think if America had joined the ICC, there probably would be a lot more investigations, and trials of war crimes and torture etc.

The problem is, from a none American point of view, it seems that america has made a fair amount of mistakes in the past

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... sh_victims
List of U.S. friendly-fire incidents since 1945 with British victims


But that is only for US friendly fire against British armed forces, which is a lot of incidents there already. But add on those against civilian targets, and other countries, I'm sure the list of friendly fire, would be a lot higher.

But then again, I still say that the war on Afghanistan, was a huge mistake, and still is a huge mistake. and we left it as a huge mistake. And American is responsible for that. But in the end, I don't think we will really see how many mistakes America has made, because its its refusal to join the ICC. I think if they do, then America will be shocked by its own.
=

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Vertigo 7 » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 17:46

Matthew, did you read that list you linked? There was a reasonable explanation for every single one of those events. Things like IFF malfunctioning, improper radio contact, et. al. Shit happens. And I can assure you the US has suffered losses from friendly fire incidents from other allies as well. Hell, we've had equipment malfunctions that have caused our own weapon systems to fire on our own forces; I even recall an incident where CIWS picked up a radar signature from another, near by, ship's CIWS and saw it as a return and inbound target and swept its 20mm chain gun across the deck of an aircraft carrier.

And further down in your link it even says:
Under the law of armed conflict (LOAC), the death of non-combatants is not necessarily a violation; there are many things to take into account. Civilians cannot be made the object of an attack, but the death/injury of civilians while conducting an attack on a military objective are governed under principles such as of proportionality and military necessity and can be permissible. Military necessity "permits the destruction of life of ... persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable by the armed conflicts of the war; ... it does not permit the killing of innocent inhabitants for purposes of revenge or the satisfaction of a lust to kill. The destruction of property to be lawful must be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war."
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Vertigo 7 » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 18:28

Also, Matthew, while you seem to be quick to point out the mistakes the US has made. I'll point you to UK making its share of them too, like the nearly 200 civilians killed by British forces in Afghanistan in 2015... only the UK doesn't seem to keep a record of those, and some are estimating civilian casualties by British forces to be even higher than that of any of its allies, including the US.

And look, this isn't a contest. Civilian casualties are a tragedy. No ones hands are clean in war, but that also doesn't mean the US, the UK, Germany, NATO, whoever are automatically the bad guy because of it.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

matthewfarmery
Posts: 3674
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 17:49
x3

Re: Afghanistan

Post by matthewfarmery » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 18:40

And if there were war crimes done by British troops, then it should be investigated by the ICC, which UK is part of. So I'm all for seeing that happen if there were war crimes done. But sadly, we can't say the same for America now can we? But the taking of civilian lives is plain wrong, and those responsible needs to be investigated and if possible punished. But yes, mistakes have happened on both sides. and its very wrong.
=

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Vertigo 7 » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 18:45

ugh... dude, you're missing the point. You can't just call it a war crime because you want it to be. It wasn't investigated because British forces were attacking military targets and the civilians were unintentionally killed. Again, that whole pesky word, 'intent'. If the British forces did knowingly and intentionally attack civilians, then it absolutely would have been investigated.

And that wasn't the first time or the last time civilians had been killed by British forces.

Whether or not the US submits to the ICC is largely irrelevant. We still abide by the UN's laws on conducting war, the same as everyone else that participated in the campaign.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: Afghanistan

Post by BaronVerde » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 19:00

Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 18. Sep 21, 18:45
You can't just call it a war crime because you want it to be.
Nonsense: here is the definition. https://www.un.org/en/genocidepreventio ... imes.shtml, b.IV., and quite a few others are the interesting part. And I can imagine you saying that's just evil minded forces trying to discredit the brave humanitarian American forces who fight for justice. As that is too ridiculous to answer, I am out. The main purpose of the thread has suffered too much anyway.

You'r still not my enemy, @Vertigo7. Just a little ... biased, maybe :-)

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Vertigo 7 » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 19:05

BaronVerde wrote:
Sat, 18. Sep 21, 19:00
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 18. Sep 21, 18:45
You can't just call it a war crime because you want it to be.
Nonsense: here is the definition. https://www.un.org/en/genocidepreventio ... imes.shtml, b.IV., and quite a few others are the interesting part. And I can imagine you saying that's just evil minded forces trying to discredit the brave humanitarian American forces who fight for justice. As that is too roidiculous to answer, I am out.

You'r still not my enemy, @Vertigo7. Just a little ... biased, maybe :-)
From your own link, as I've been saying over and over again:
War crimes contain two main elements:

1) A contextual element: “the conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international/non-international armed conflict”;
2) A mental element: intent and knowledge both with regards to the individual act and the contextual element.
I'm not your enemy? I'm an American, and I served in the US Military. You clearly have a distaste for both. It's your imagination that's leading you down this silly path.

What I am biased against is trying to take every misstep the US commits, twisting that into some kind of travesty, as if your own governments have never done the same. Every single country that has participated in this war shares its own blame and responsibilities for civilian casualties. We weren't there alone, nor were civilian casualties solely caused by US forces. But, amazingly, some how, the vast majority of those aren't considered war crimes by any convening authority... I wonder why that is? Maybe because wishing that into reality doesn't work and the laws agreed upon by every member of the UN states otherwise.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

Alan Phipps
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 30368
Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
x4

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Alan Phipps » Sun, 19. Sep 21, 13:20

Can we please move on from the blame game arguments over who is alleged to have done what to whom in the past. They will always be somewhat partisan and pointless in today's context.

Perhaps a more sensible thing to debate now is that given what has happened there, what are the likely effects and outcomes in the region from here on? What can be done to be more constructive now?
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.

Teladi CEO
Posts: 274
Joined: Sun, 17. Jan 21, 15:24

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Teladi CEO » Sat, 4. Dec 21, 02:11

Not to revive an obviously dead discussion; but new information has emerged about the situation in Afghanistan, primarily focused around ISIS-Taliban-NRF conflict.

Most of this info is sketchy at best so don’t take any of it as fact.

National Resistance Front- For context for those who do know this is a anti-Taliban resistance which is a broad coalition of former government soldiers, ethnic minorities and warlords forces.
-As of now they (self) reportedly still occupy most of Panjishir Valley and parts of Andarab.
-Despite heavy NRF losses being reported by both sides they still seem active with a lot of light combat occurring around Panjishir, Samangan and Andarab

Taliban:
-The Taliban keep reporting victory across Afghanistan against their enemies but even admit themselves that they are taking heavy casualties to ISIS
-Had a major border clash with Iran, and initially claimed it captured several Iranian bases. Later repealed that claim.
-Struggling to establish an effective government and seem to be losing control over parts of their new nation

ISIS:
-Despite the Taliban reporting victory it’s evident that ISIS is strong
-Killed numerous high ranking Afghan commanders
-Semi-control several regions in eastern Afghanistan and have influence throughout the rest
(Korengal Valley has been under ISIS control since 2017 and I haven’t heard of any changes to that)

I just thought this information would be interesting: here’s a few (iffy) sources:

https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afgh ... ide-429454

https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/bruta ... nsurgents/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/ ... rder-areas

https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/world-ne ... amine-ruin
We don’t know what paradise is like, but probably it’s blue magenta, flecked with pink. But even if it’s green and red-checked we should make the most of it. -Boron saying

User avatar
Incubi
Posts: 5044
Joined: Mon, 2. Jan 06, 06:59
xr

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Incubi » Mon, 6. Dec 21, 01:17

Can we please stop calling them Isis? Referring to them as Isis not only implies a legitimacy that they do not have, but Isis is a 5000 plus year old goddess who is both culturally and historically more important to the human race as a whole than this group that should be called Daesh instead. I know we are not taught about Egyptian mythology as much as we used to be so here is the wiki for those who did not learn about her in school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis

With that out of the way, I hope the plan isn't to see them kill each other off. Because they won't finish the job and the civilians will suffer exponentially for it. I am usually one to say pull out of the middle east, we are not wanted there and everything we do is used against us, no matter what it is. When a terrorist uses a kid as a shield and the kid gets killed people get mad at the US and not the terrorist. This makes me not want my military there. I don't want kids killed and I don't want the blame for it either. In Afghanistan we were hated for going there, we were hated for staying there, and we are hated for leaving there. So, I am usually one to say get out.

In this case I just want the US to finish the job, take advantage of the fight between the Taliban and the Daesh and just destroy them both. Before things get worse. I am tired of the US being there, I am also tired of the US being dragged back there. How long before this fight is on our Soil again? And what happens this time?

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”