plodder wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:58 am
There is every need to be grumpy, buddy. You're a nightmare.
No doubt about that, but you’re trying to convince me that a mediaeval religious sect opposed opium production on clever geopolitical grounds. I think there are other explainations. Is that really such a mentally unwell position to hold?
The brookings institution in washington is a pillar of the US defence and foreign affairs establishment that helped advocate for all the aggression in the middle east. I dont take things they claim without good sources at face value.
sheldrake wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:14 pm
Is that really such a mentally unwell position to hold?
Mentally unwell? I didn't say that. You are, however, incapable of holding a normal conversation (considering, valuing and digesting opposing viewpoints are things you clearly find particularly difficult, and it's not normal to see every interaction as a sparring match where winning is the end goal - you risk spreading dismay and confusion without even realising it).
You can (and in my opinion should) get help with this.
As for your incessant hammering on a micro-point, whatever. Think whatever you like.
I am having a conversation, it's just not one where I agree with the majority. I don't think that's a psychological problem.
Do you believe that the consensus of opinions amongst people in this forum would be seen as 'normal' in broader society? I don't think they would.
I'm simply not part of the consensus on many topics. If you only want to talk about these things with people who agree with most of what you say, I can vacate the forum again, no problem.
Also note where the personal insults come from when reading something you disagree with; self-reflection is in order. Perhaps I'm not the one who has the most trouble reflecting on and processing things they disagree with?
sheldrake wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:57 pm
Also note where the personal insults come from when reading something you disagree with; self-reflection is in order. Perhaps I'm not the one who has the most trouble reflecting on and processing things they disagree with?
I knew you would see my comments as an underhand attempt to gain superiority. sigh.
sheldrake wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:57 pm
Also note where the personal insults come from when reading something you disagree with; self-reflection is in order. Perhaps I'm not the one who has the most trouble reflecting on and processing things they disagree with?
I knew you would see my comments as an underhand attempt to gain superiority. sigh.
I don't see them as underhanded or competitive at all, they just read like you're getting angry with me not agreeing. I'm not angry.
It's like having somebody shout at you to calm down when you haven't raised your own voice.
Because you struggle to bother to read what others are saying because the concept of a conversation isn't one you understand, I'm not sure there's value in posting this, but
There's no need to be grumpy, there are several published things under discussion in this thread.
That document you refer to was a document where they apparently agreed to oppose all forms of international terrorism. I do not think that was a sincere priority for them. I do not think it follows that bringing opium harvesting to a halt was a geopolitical ruse, either.
The Taliban were of course not responsible for the 9/11 bombings, but they did give support to various anti-US terrorist networks. Probably not a good reason to invade and attempt to rule the country, but.. much of what Brookings have subsequently published on Afghanistan, including the insinuation that the Taliban were insincere or machiavellian in their opium control efforts reads like post-hoc justification of a failed policy which they were partly responsible for advocating.
Puritanical zealots don't need complex or Machiavellian reasons to clean up drug production. Consider Duterte in the Phillipines; he seems quite simillar in some ways, but without the radical Islamic fervor. That's not an endorsement of either of them, it's just a simple explanation worth considering.
Bird on a Fire wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:20 pm
I was hoping for specific examples.
As well as not helping with 9/11, the Taliban also didn't support ISIS.
So I'm wondering which examples of their involvement in international terrorism had convinced you that their claim to oppose it was insincere.
I agree with you about ISIS too. I think that was probably a creation of the US intended to unseat Assad in Syria which they subsequently lost control of.
Jordanian military officials reported some of the founders of the movement being trained by US special forces on their soil. My views on the subject are strongly in tune with this book: -
I'm going to focus on what the US foreign policy establishment claimed the Taliban did, to highlight the contrast with their claims about Taliban and opium; keep in mind that my hypothesis here is that the US foreign policy establishment is painting the Taliban in a particular light, both w.r.t to Terrorism and Opium production in a way which is inconsistent when examined up close
https://www.dni.gov/nctc/groups/afghan_taliban.html
"In the years leading up to the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States, the Taliban provided a safe haven for al-Qa‘ida. This gave al-Qa‘ida a base in which it could freely recruit, train, and deploy terrorists to other countries. The Taliban held sway in Afghanistan until October 2001, when they were routed from power by the US-led campaign against al-Qa‘ida."
On Sunday, a citizen told Hasht-e Subh [an independent non-profit newspaper] that he had called an ambulance while transporting a patient from the road, but he has been told that the ambulance could not provide services due to the lack of fuel.
At 1:54 pm, the citizen wanted to take a girl who had fallen on the street to the hospital from the Kabul University crossroad.
When he called the ambulance for help, he was told that the ambulance had no fuel and that it does not deliver services for two weeks.
According to Reuters, Taliban forces held a military parade in Kabul on Sunday using captured American-made armoured vehicles and Russian helicopters in a display that showed their ongoing transformation from an insurgent force to a regular standing army.
Fishnut wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:42 pmAccording to Reuters, Taliban forces held a military parade in Kabul on Sunday using captured American-made armoured vehicles and Russian helicopters in a display that showed their ongoing transformation from an insurgent force to a regular standing army.
You have to pay a regular standing army - let's see whether they can get past the maraudering gang stage. Afghanistan's ethnic and tribal make-up doesn't lend itself to a smooth central authority that calmly collects taxes.
Fishnut wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:42 pmAccording to Reuters, Taliban forces held a military parade in Kabul on Sunday using captured American-made armoured vehicles and Russian helicopters in a display that showed their ongoing transformation from an insurgent force to a regular standing army.
You have to pay a regular standing army - let's see whether they can get past the maraudering gang stage. Afghanistan's ethnic and tribal make-up doesn't lend itself to a smooth central authority that calmly collects taxes.
The Taliban have enough cash to run an army from taxing the production and export of opium and heroin.
But that income won’t be enough to provide food and essential services to the population.
Fishnut wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:42 pmAccording to Reuters, Taliban forces held a military parade in Kabul on Sunday using captured American-made armoured vehicles and Russian helicopters in a display that showed their ongoing transformation from an insurgent force to a regular standing army.
You have to pay a regular standing army - let's see whether they can get past the maraudering gang stage. Afghanistan's ethnic and tribal make-up doesn't lend itself to a smooth central authority that calmly collects taxes.
The Taliban have enough cash to run an army from taxing the production and export of opium and heroin.
But that income won’t be enough to provide food and essential services to the population.
Ayn Rand would approve.
We can all presume from this that Afghanistan is now the freest, most-prosperous country in the world and libertarians are queuing around the block at its embassies to relocate to this minarchist utopia.
What’s that you say ... still m.st.rbating furiously into a MAGA hat in their parents’ basement. How strange.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
Fishnut wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:42 pmAccording to Reuters, Taliban forces held a military parade in Kabul on Sunday using captured American-made armoured vehicles and Russian helicopters in a display that showed their ongoing transformation from an insurgent force to a regular standing army.
You have to pay a regular standing army - let's see whether they can get past the maraudering gang stage. Afghanistan's ethnic and tribal make-up doesn't lend itself to a smooth central authority that calmly collects taxes.
The Taliban have enough cash to run an army from taxing the production and export of opium and heroin.
But that income won’t be enough to provide food and essential services to the population.
Not if they need to use that cash to pay off the regional warlords whose men the Taliban rely on.
Remember that pledge to resettle 20,000 Afghans back in August? Well, the scheme is still in the "design" stage and there are very legitimate fears it will die before it becomes operational”.
Victoria Atkins, the minister responsible for Afghan resettlement, said,
“We want to set the scheme up as an example of a safe and legal route under the government’s new plan for immigration”
Fishnut wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:47 am
Remember that pledge to resettle 20,000 Afghans back in August? Well, the scheme is still in the "design" stage and there are very legitimate fears it will die before it becomes operational”.
Victoria Atkins, the minister responsible for Afghan resettlement, said,
“We want to set the scheme up as an example of a safe and legal route under the government’s new plan for immigration”
