Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Awesome Obama Thread II
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 375 of 397 (656244)
03-17-2012 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by crashfrog
03-16-2012 8:13 PM


Re: *Removes gym guy hat. Puts on aluminum hat*
I don't have to ignore it, it's irrelevant. Who cares where the hijackers were from? Saudi Arabia didn't send them; Saudi Arabia was opposed to al-Qaeda and several times tried to have bin Laden extradited. Guess who it was that blocked the extradition? Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban. Kind of a favor to a relative, you see, since his daughter married bin Laden's son.
More convoluted brain droppings.
The clerics in Pakistan funded the Taliban and have provided them with plenty of fighters. The attackers were Saudi citizens. Where does Afghanistan show up as a supporter for Bin Laden, the attacks or financial backing?
Bin Laden, following the attacks, was to be extradited to Pakistan, which the Taliban AND Bin Laden both agreed to do. But not only would his safety at that time not been guaranteed, Pakistan feared an embarrassing show of support by many Pakistani citizens for Bin Laden.
Source: The Telegraph - Pakistan blocks bin Laden trial. This was in Oct. 2001, not a month after the attacks.
There was no reason to really pin this on any country. But if any were to be accused, Pakistan had more ties to Bin Laden and the Taliban than Afghanistan.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 8:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by crashfrog, posted 03-17-2012 9:43 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 377 of 397 (656247)
03-17-2012 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by crashfrog
03-17-2012 9:43 AM


Re: *Removes gym guy hat. Puts on aluminum hat*
Any further questions?
Yes, three more. One of which is a three part question. So try to follow, it will get tricky as I'm goiing to start with the second question first, then work backwards but may switch to forward. Then the three part question is in there somewhere and it too will be out of order. And don't hesitate to ask me to repeat the question/s either. I'm here mainly for you.
First Question (second in the order):
But wasn't Mullah Omar and the Taliban funded and supported with fighters by Pakistan and it's clerics?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by crashfrog, posted 03-17-2012 9:43 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by crashfrog, posted 03-17-2012 9:58 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 382 of 397 (656408)
03-18-2012 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by crashfrog
03-17-2012 9:58 AM


Re: *Removes gym guy hat. Puts on aluminum hat*
The Taliban funded al-Qaeda, and received training and soldiers in response. At what point did Pakistan fund al-Qaeda? Please be specific.
Don't be a twat. Of course Pakistan isn't DIRECTLY funding Al Qaeda, but they do so indirectly through funding the Taliban.
They aided, along with Saudi Arabia, the uprising of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
SOurce
quote:
The Taliban's early victories in 1994 were followed by a series of defeats that resulted in heavy losses which led analysts to believe the Taliban movement had run its course. But Pakistan provided increased support to the Taliban. Many analysts like Amin Saikal describe the Taliban as developing into a proxy force for Pakistan's regional interests. On 26 September 1996, as the Taliban with military support by Pakistan and financial support by Saudi Arabia prepared for another major offensive, Massoud ordered a full retreat from Kabul. The Taliban seized Kabul on 27 September 1996, and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. They imposed on the parts of Afghanistan under their control their political and judicial interpretation of Islam issuing edicts especially targeting women.
further-
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf — then as Chief of Army Staff — was responsible for sending thousands of Pakistanis to fight alongside the Taliban and bin Laden against the forces of Massoud. According to Pakistani Afghanistan expert Ahmed Rashid, "between 1994 and 1999, an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 Pakistanis trained and fought in Afghanistan" on the side of the Taliban. In 2001 alone, there were believed to be 28,000 Pakistani nationals, many either from the Frontier Corps or army, fighting inside Afghanistan. An estimated 8,000 Pakistani militants were recruited in madrassas filling the ranks of the estimated 25,000 regular Taliban force. A 1998 document by the U.S. State Department confirms that "20—40 percent of [regular] Taliban soldiers are Pakistani." The document further stated that the parents of those Pakistani nationals "know nothing regarding their child's military involvement with the Taliban until their bodies are brought back to Pakistan."
further -
In early 2001 Massoud addressed the European Parliament in Brussels asking the international community to provide humanitarian help to the people of Afghanistan. He stated that the Taliban and al-Qaeda had introduced "a very wrong perception of Islam" and that without the support of Pakistan and bin Laden the Taliban would not be able to sustain their military campaign for up to a year. On this visit to Europe he also warned that his intelligence had gathered information about a large-scale attack on U.S. soil being imminent.
That should be specific enough. Pakistan is responsible for the Taliban's rise in Afghansitan, and 20-40% of Talibani soldiers were Pakistani.
Pakistan should have been the target, not Afghanistan.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by crashfrog, posted 03-17-2012 9:58 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2012 3:10 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 384 of 397 (656417)
03-18-2012 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by crashfrog
03-18-2012 3:10 PM


Re: *Removes gym guy hat. Puts on aluminum hat*
Like I said, Al Qaeda is a militia group with ties to no specific country. Neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan shoud have been the target. I was speaking in hypothetical given that you supported the invasion of Afghanistan due to it's attack on the US, as you claimed.
If Pakistan isn't targeted for indirectly aiding Al Qaeda by funding the Taliban and supporting Bin Laden, then neither should have Afghanistan.
Can you concede on that?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2012 3:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2012 4:33 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 386 of 397 (656420)
03-18-2012 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by crashfrog
03-18-2012 4:33 PM


Re: *Removes gym guy hat. Puts on aluminum hat*
And Percy asks why?!
But, again, I think Afghanistan and the Taliban were a pretty reasonable target considering that bin Laden was hiding out in Afghanistan as a guest of the Taliban.
Yup, you're right.
That makes zero fucking sense.
You're even righter.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2012 4:33 PM crashfrog has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024