Taliban claims victory in Afghan War as NATO ends combat mission

http://cdn.rt.com/files/news/35/54/30/00/34643745.si.jpg

As the NATO combat mission in Afghanistan comes to an end and allied troops depart, the Taliban has proclaimed itself the victor in the protracted war.

For the Taliban, NATO’s pullout from Afghanistan is a clear demonstration of the alliance’s weakness.

“We consider this step a clear indication of their defeat and disappointment,” the Taliban stated, arraigning the US-led mission of “barbarism and cruelty” that left “a pool of blood” behind.

The comment from the Taliban comes a day after NATO marked the end of its combat mission with a low-key ceremony in Kabul, arranged in secret due to the threat of a militant attack.

“America, its invading allies... along with all international arrogant organizations have been handed a clear-cut defeat in this lopsided war,” claimed the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.

http://rt.com/news/218435-taliban-victory-afghanistan-nato/

They are right.

How much do the Taliban control?

lets hope the females at least stand up to them...

someone has got to stop running away eventually..

The brave Taliban wouldn't come out and fight. All these brave fighters could manage was a few roadside bombs and a few shots here and there. America got bored of the whole thing.

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 11:25am:

...America got bored of the whole thing.

LOL

Yeah, they only went in there for a good time.

freediver wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 10:02am:

How much do the Taliban control?

According to Pakistani media, Afghanistan is largely controlled by Taliban:

http://icontradingco.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Taliban-Controlled-Areas-final.jpg

http://nation.com.pk/international/11-Sep-2009/Taliban-presence-seen-across-almost-all-Afghanistan-ICOS

Let's look at the Taliban. They've lost over 50,000 men , their leader hid out in a complex in Pakistan like a rat and they don't fight. They didn't beat anybody.

Leave the poo hole to them.

They can go back to the dark ages and suppress women and blow up market places.

HooYAY its FriYAY wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 12:03pm:

Leave the poo hole to them. They can go back to the dark ages and suppress women and blow up market places.

and grow the Wests drug of choice.

cods wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 2:57pm:

HooYAY its FriYAY wrote on Dec 30th, 2014 at 12:03pm: Leave the poo hole to them. They can go back to the dark ages and suppress women and blow up market places. and grow the Wests drug of choice.

They will cods, the Americans kept those poppy fields flourishing, the Taliban should be thankful for that.

Julius Abbott wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 11:58am:

freediver wrote on Dec 30th, 2014 at 10:02am: How much do the Taliban control? According to Pakistani media, Afghanistan is largely controlled by Taliban: http://icontradingco.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Taliban-Controlled-Areas-final.jpg http://nation.com.pk/international/11-Sep-2009/Taliban-presence-seen-across-almost-all-Afghanistan-ICOS

::)

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 3:06pm:

cods wrote on Dec 30th, 2014 at 2:57pm: HooYAY its FriYAY wrote on Dec 30th, 2014 at 12:03pm: Leave the poo hole to them. They can go back to the dark ages and suppress women and blow up market places. and grow the Wests drug of choice. They will cods, the Americans kept those poppy fields flourishing, the Taliban should be thankful for that.

Ummmmm... you two do realise that the Taliban are very much against the Heroin trade?

Last time they were in power in Afghanistan, they just about stopped the growing of opium and the world suffered a massive Heroin drought - even here in Australia, despite us not getting our Heroin from Afghanistan.

It took the invasion for the Heroin trade to resume.

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 12:03pm:

Let's look at the Taliban. They've lost over 50,000 men , their leader hid out in a complex in Pakistan like a rat and they don't fight. They didn't beat anybody.

Their leader is in Pakistan?
I didn't think they know exactly where that Omar guy has been since the day they invaded?

Doesn't matter how they did it, or their losses. The winner is the one who has their feet on the ground at the end.

Quote:

Doesn't matter how they did it, or their losses. The winner is the one who has their feet on the ground at the end.

So the US could only 'win' if they moved in?

freediver wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:

Quote: Doesn't matter how they did it, or their losses. The winner is the one who has their feet on the ground at the end. So the US could only 'win' if they moved in?

No. They could only win if they defeated and removed the Taliban.
That way, when they pulled out, they wouldn't simply have the Taliban moving right back in - effectively, they would have been the last ones out of the two to have their feet on the ground.
I guess the Taliban could have formally surrendered - thrown down their weapons and marched into captivity. But same deal then.... the yanks would be leaving with the Taliban all in camps.

Life_goes_on wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 4:41pm:

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 30th, 2014 at 12:03pm: Let's look at the Taliban. They've lost over 50,000 men , their leader hid out in a complex in Pakistan like a rat and they don't fight. They didn't beat anybody. Their leader is in Pakistan? I didn't think they know exactly where that Omar guy has been since the day they invaded? Doesn't matter how they did it, or their losses. The winner is the one who has their feet on the ground at the end.

Anyway America is leaving 13,000 military personal as advisers so they aren't fully pulling out. Get your facts right ghost boy.

Let's see how long those 13,000 last there once the Taliban decide to overrun the last remaining areas - the same as what happened after the Soviets pulled out after their loss.

Life_goes_on wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 4:50pm:

Let's see how long those 13,000 last there once the Taliban decide to overrun the last remaining areas - the same as what happened after the Soviets pulled out after their loss.

America has massive bases throughout neighbouring countries. Their people will be well protected. It almost seems like you are barracking for the enemy?

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 4:52pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on Dec 30th, 2014 at 4:50pm: Let's see how long those 13,000 last there once the Taliban decide to overrun the last remaining areas - the same as what happened after the Soviets pulled out after their loss. America has massive bases throughout neighbouring countries. Their people will be well protected. It almost seems like you are barracking for the enemy?

I don't think that they're in any real danger. I just think that they will be very quickly withdrawn once the Taliban decides to overrun the place. The whole "war" has been a waste from start to finish. It didn't help that they lost interest after 18 months and concentrated on Iraq instead while completely neglecting any military efforts in Afghanistan.


Barracking for the enemy? Yeah, right.

Quote:

No. They could only win if they defeated and removed the Taliban.

Removed to where? Guantanamo?

Karzai threatens to join Taliban.

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 12:03pm:

Let's look at the Taliban. They've lost over 50,000 men , their leader hid out in a complex in Pakistan like a rat and they don't fight. They didn't beat anybody.

Their leader, Rocky? Really?   :)

http://cdn.rt.com/files/news/35/54/30/00/34643745.si.jpg

Great picture by Mohammad Shoib.

This war was stupid stupid..our objective was to flush out Al-Qaeda and then get out. The English gave fair warning that you cannot fight in that territory, they couldn't get anywhere centuries ago, indeed, I remember us laughing at the Rouski's going in in 79 and saying the very same thing.We just spent 13 years fighting for Afghan women to have the right to lots of things that very shortly they won't have again...lost a lot of men doing it too.
  Very shortly the Taliban will resume control , but worse still, when the ISIS twats have been disbanded in Syria/Iraq then they will as sure as apples etc firm up with the Taliban, who by now are in charge of Afghanistan again, and they will both make a concerted effort for Pakistan and the Golden Nuclear Egg, and then it's "Good Night Vienna" for everyone.

But don't tell the extreme lefties who have ruined our Labor Party..they've got everything under control

brumbie wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 8:06pm:

This war was stupid stupid..our objective was to flush out Al-Qaeda and then get out...

The objective was to portray an image of US military might...a poorly thought-out strategy that was doomed from the start.

If Bush and Howard had half a brain between them, they would have negotiated with the Taliban from the beginning, and targeted al-Qaeda with missile strikes if necessary.

Instead the US has ended up looking weak and impotent.

The result can already be seen with the Chinese navy flexing its muscles in the South China Sea, and with Putin invading Georgia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. As well as this, al-Qaeda affiliates have sprung up in about 20 other countries.

Bush was an intellectual weakling, and the defeat in Afghanistan is one of the greatest signposts of that fact.

Julius Abbott wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 8:16pm:

brumbie wrote on Dec 30th, 2014 at 8:06pm: This war was stupid stupid..our objective was to flush out Al-Qaeda and then get out... The objective was to portray an image of US military might...a poorly thought-out strategy that was doomed from the start. If Bush and Howard had half a brain between them, they would have negotiated with the Taliban from the beginning, and targeted al-Qaeda with missile strikes if necessary. Instead the US has ended up looked up looking weak and impotent. The result can already be seen with the Chinese navy flexing its muscles in the South China Sea, and with Putin invading Georgia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. As well as this, al-Qaeda affiliates have sprung up in about 20 other countries. Bush was an intellectual weakling, and this is one of the greatest signposts of that fact.

No...our objective was to flush out Al-Qaeda and then get out.What happened after that was an ego trip by Dubya..hindsight is a wonderful thing but always comes at the wrong time...what we need to do is prepare for what comes next and not spend wasted time apportioning blame because whilst the muslims have you blaming yourselves they will strike. That is the weakness of the Christian values, apologies and then self hatred, something they know nothing about.

You better know thine enemy..because he knows you...he's got you down to a tee...

brumbie wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 8:06pm:

Very shortly the Taliban will resume control , but worse still, when the ISIS twats have been disbanded in Syria/Iraq then they will as sure as apples etc firm up with the Taliban, who by now are in charge of Afghanistan again, and they will both make a concerted effort for Pakistan and the Golden Nuclear Egg, and then it's "Good Night Vienna" for everyone.

So the Taliban is going to attack Pakistan?  Considering the history of the Taliban, that's very funny Brumbie.

ColdFact wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 8:45pm:

brumbie wrote on Dec 30th, 2014 at 8:06pm: Very shortly the Taliban will resume control , but worse still, when the ISIS twats have been disbanded in Syria/Iraq then they will as sure as apples etc firm up with the Taliban, who by now are in charge of Afghanistan again, and they will both make a concerted effort for Pakistan and the Golden Nuclear Egg, and then it's "Good Night Vienna" for everyone. So the Taliban is going to attack Pakistan?  Considering the history of the Taliban, that's very funny Brumbie.

I don't find 130 dead schoolchildren funny Coldfact!!
That was distasteful.

The idea that Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Libyans are like everyone else, especially that they are just like Europeans, Americans, Australians in their aims, views, values - that's what has been convincingly defeated. The Taliban has been waging a war of resistance to that end and they have proven their point.

brumbie wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 8:57pm:

ColdFact wrote on Dec 30th, 2014 at 8:45pm: brumbie wrote on Dec 30th, 2014 at 8:06pm: Very shortly the Taliban will resume control , but worse still, when the ISIS twats have been disbanded in Syria/Iraq then they will as sure as apples etc firm up with the Taliban, who by now are in charge of Afghanistan again, and they will both make a concerted effort for Pakistan and the Golden Nuclear Egg, and then it's "Good Night Vienna" for everyone. So the Taliban is going to attack Pakistan?  Considering the history of the Taliban, that's very funny Brumbie. I don't find 130 dead schoolchildren funny Coldfact!! That was distasteful.

nothing funny about the Taliban..

my faith is in the women folk....they wont like being oppressed and that will scare the beejesus out of these so called men..

come on girls you can do it..

Quote:

Taliban claims victory in Afghan War

As predicted by almost everyone from day 1.

To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 5:31am:

Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there.

So why did they bother taking us on at all?

freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 8:09am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 5:31am: Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there. So why did they bother taking us on at all?

Maybe Dnaever didnt want the western world to respond after what happened on 9/11 or attempt to change the situation in afghanistan that led to the rise of Al Qaeda.

stryder wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 8:15am:

freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 5:31am: Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there. So why did they bother taking us on at all? Maybe Dnaever didnt want the western world to respond after what happened on 9/11 or attempt to change the situation in afghanistan that led to the rise of Al Qaeda.

The response achieved what exactly? More blood shed. The rise of ISIS.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 8:34am:

stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:15am: freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 5:31am: Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there. So why did they bother taking us on at all? Maybe Dnaever didnt want the western world to respond after what happened on 9/11 or attempt to change the situation in afghanistan that led to the rise of Al Qaeda. The response achieved what exactly? More blood shed. The rise of ISIS.

You expect the western nation to sit on there hands when we have radical muslims running around the world, who wanna go forward and attack us when ever possible ???

freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 8:09am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 5:31am: Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there. So why did they bother taking us on at all?

To them we had invaded their country. Anybody who thought that they were not going to dispatch us the same way they did with the Russians is a tad naive.

stryder wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 8:15am:

freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 5:31am: Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there. So why did they bother taking us on at all? Maybe Dnaever didnt want the western world to respond after what happened on 9/11 or attempt to change the situation in Afghanistan that led to the rise of Al Qaeda.

No mate - not making any judgment just saying what happened - do you think differently, do you believe that the effort our side was willing to put in was going to result in a successful outcome?

that led to the rise of Al Qaeda

They already existed and were not specific to Afghanistan.

Do you think that invading a whole country that had nothing to do with 911 instead of just going after the guys responsible was a bit of overkill that probably hurt their cause more than helping ?

Had the US dropped 10,000 troops into the area where Bin Laden was known to be instead of trying to take a whole country maybe they would have got the guy at the beginning.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 8:44am:

freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 5:31am: Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there. So why did they bother taking us on at all? To them we had invaded their country. Anybody who thought that they were not going to dispatch us the same way they did with the Russians is a tad naive.

So you believe that America and its allies should not have tried and attemped to do what they did over there in afghanistan, or at least try  ???

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 8:53am:

stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:15am: freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 5:31am: Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there. So why did they bother taking us on at all? Maybe Dnaever didnt want the western world to respond after what happened on 9/11 or attempt to change the situation in Afghanistan that led to the rise of Al Qaeda. No mate - not making any judgment just saying what happened - do you think differently, do you believe that the effort our side was willing to put in was going to result in a successful outcome? that led to the rise of Al Qaeda They already existed and were not specific to Afghanistan. Do you think that invading a whole country that had nothing to do with 911 instead of just going after the guys responsible was a bit of overkill that probably hurt their cause more than helping ? Had the US dropped 10,000 troops into the area where Bin Laden was known to be instead of trying to take a whole country maybe they would have got the guy at the beginning.

So america and its allies should have just sat on there hands and DID NOTHING,


Yeah, i always thought your mentality was ALL ABOUT THAT,

stryder wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 8:40am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:34am: stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:15am: freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 5:31am: Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there. So why did they bother taking us on at all? Maybe Dnaever didnt want the western world to respond after what happened on 9/11 or attempt to change the situation in afghanistan that led to the rise of Al Qaeda. The response achieved what exactly? More blood shed. The rise of ISIS. You expect the western nation to sit on there hands when we have radical muslims running around the world, who wanna go forward and attack us when ever possible ???

I'm wondering if our 'War on Terror' made terrorism stronger, they seem to be growing. We don't seem to be killing many of them, only innocent civilians and our own soldiers.....oh! they pop off a few of their own from time to time, as we do, accidentally of course.

Once again, what has our response achieved?....apart from keeping the industrial war machine well oiled.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 8:58am:

stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:40am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:34am: stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:15am: freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 5:31am: Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there. So why did they bother taking us on at all? Maybe Dnaever didnt want the western world to respond after what happened on 9/11 or attempt to change the situation in afghanistan that led to the rise of Al Qaeda. The response achieved what exactly? More blood shed. The rise of ISIS. You expect the western nation to sit on there hands when we have radical muslims running around the world, who wanna go forward and attack us when ever possible ??? I'm wondering if our 'War on Terror' made terrorism stronger, they seem to be growing. We don't seem to be killing many of them, only innocent civilians and our own soldiers.....oh! they pop off a few of their own from time to time, as we do, accidentally of course. Once again, what has our response achieved?....apart from keeping the industrial war machine well oiled.

It was when the socialistic Barrack Obama as US president came into the scene and that was when the terrorists and the tryrannical despots that you secretly admire BECOME EMBOLDENED.

stryder wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 8:57am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:53am: stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:15am: freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 5:31am: Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there. So why did they bother taking us on at all? Maybe Dnaever didnt want the western world to respond after what happened on 9/11 or attempt to change the situation in Afghanistan that led to the rise of Al Qaeda. No mate - not making any judgment just saying what happened - do you think differently, do you believe that the effort our side was willing to put in was going to result in a successful outcome? that led to the rise of Al Qaeda They already existed and were not specific to Afghanistan. Do you think that invading a whole country that had nothing to do with 911 instead of just going after the guys responsible was a bit of overkill that probably hurt their cause more than helping ? Had the US dropped 10,000 troops into the area where Bin Laden was known to be instead of trying to take a whole country maybe they would have got the guy at the beginning. So america and its allies should have just sat on there hands and DID NOTHING, Yeah, i always thought your mentality was ALL ABOUT THAT,

Did you miss the bit about going after the guys responsible ?

Getting the guys who were actually responsible for the atrocity - now there's a novel idea.

stryder wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 9:05am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:58am: stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:40am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:34am: stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:15am: freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 5:31am: Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there. So why did they bother taking us on at all? Maybe Dnaever didnt want the western world to respond after what happened on 9/11 or attempt to change the situation in afghanistan that led to the rise of Al Qaeda. The response achieved what exactly? More blood shed. The rise of ISIS. You expect the western nation to sit on there hands when we have radical muslims running around the world, who wanna go forward and attack us when ever possible ??? I'm wondering if our 'War on Terror' made terrorism stronger, they seem to be growing. We don't seem to be killing many of them, only innocent civilians and our own soldiers.....oh! they pop off a few of their own from time to time, as we do, accidentally of course. Once again, what has our response achieved?....apart from keeping the industrial war machine well oiled. It was when the socialistic Barrack Obama as US president came into the scene and that was when the terrorists and the tryrannical despots that you secretly admire BECOME EMBOLDENED.

I don't admire terrorists and did you miss the question about what was accomplished by going to war?

stryder wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 9:05am:

It was when the socialistic Barrack Obama as US president came into the scene and that was when the terrorists and the tryrannical despots that you secretly admire BECOME EMBOLDENED.

What indicates that this happened ?

I would have thought that the coalition of the swilling destabilising the middle east was the best thing that ever happened in support of terrorism. Certainly destabilising Iraq allowed Islamic groups access to the region where they previously have little presence.

It was funny that people were held in GTMO Bay for providing material support to the enemy when in fact nobody had provided more material support to terrorism than Bush Howard Blair and co.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 9:09am:

stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:57am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:53am: stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:15am: freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 5:31am: Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there. So why did they bother taking us on at all? Maybe Dnaever didnt want the western world to respond after what happened on 9/11 or attempt to change the situation in Afghanistan that led to the rise of Al Qaeda. No mate - not making any judgment just saying what happened - do you think differently, do you believe that the effort our side was willing to put in was going to result in a successful outcome? that led to the rise of Al Qaeda They already existed and were not specific to Afghanistan. Do you think that invading a whole country that had nothing to do with 911 instead of just going after the guys responsible was a bit of overkill that probably hurt their cause more than helping ? Had the US dropped 10,000 troops into the area where Bin Laden was known to be instead of trying to take a whole country maybe they would have got the guy at the beginning. So america and its allies should have just sat on there hands and DID NOTHING, Yeah, i always thought your mentality was ALL ABOUT THAT, Did you miss the bit about going after the guys responsible ? Getting the guys who were actually responsible for the atrocity - now there's a novel idea.

President George W bush gave an ultimatum to the Taliban a few days after 9/11

Hand over Osama bin laden and the hierachy of al qaeda, disemble every al qaeda training camp and base throughout the country, or face military action.


So the americans did try to go after him WITH THAT FIRST, BEFORE THE MARINES, F-18S AND APACHES WENT IN. after the taliban gave the americans the middle finger in response.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 9:13am:

stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 9:05am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:58am: stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:40am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:34am: stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:15am: freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 5:31am: Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there. So why did they bother taking us on at all? Maybe Dnaever didnt want the western world to respond after what happened on 9/11 or attempt to change the situation in afghanistan that led to the rise of Al Qaeda. The response achieved what exactly? More blood shed. The rise of ISIS. You expect the western nation to sit on there hands when we have radical muslims running around the world, who wanna go forward and attack us when ever possible ??? I'm wondering if our 'War on Terror' made terrorism stronger, they seem to be growing. We don't seem to be killing many of them, only innocent civilians and our own soldiers.....oh! they pop off a few of their own from time to time, as we do, accidentally of course. Once again, what has our response achieved?....apart from keeping the industrial war machine well oiled. It was when the socialistic Barrack Obama as US president came into the scene and that was when the terrorists and the tryrannical despots that you secretly admire BECOME EMBOLDENED. I don't admire terrorists and did you miss the question about what was accomplished by going to war?

Of course you do, you admire any anti western scum you can find, that feeling flows from nearly every post I read from you, and im not the only one who thinks so.

stryder wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 9:19am:

Of course you do, you admire any anti western scum you can find, that feeling flows from nearly every post I read from you, and im not the only one who thinks so.

You'll never understand if you only see black and white, there's so much in between that you'r not seeing.

There's millions of people around he world that can see the injustices of the west, it doesn't mean they've switched allegiance, they've simply acknowledged how it really is, not how they're told it is, or how they want to believe it is because they're afraid of how it really is.


Not everyone can peel back the layers of conventional wisdom and say, ‘What the mainstream is telling you isn't right, this is how things really are.’

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 9:13am:

I don't admire terrorists and did you miss the question about what was accomplished by going to war?

To some people you have to either support stupidity or you are supporting the terrorists.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 10:05am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 9:13am: I don't admire terrorists and did you miss the question about what was accomplished by going to war? To some people you have to either support stupidity or you are supporting the terrorists.

Yep!

George W

'If you're not with us, you're with them'.

Can't you be with neither? Now there's an option.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 10:05am:

[quote author=pansi1951 link=1419895002/43#43 date=1419981183] I don't admire terrorists and did you miss the question about what was accomplished by going to war? To some people you have to either support stupidity or you are supporting the terrorists.

People can be stupid on both sides of spectrum whether political or social, but the one thing that is clear on any argument when it comes to STUPIDITY that many lefties think collectively and produce stupid results like we have seen from Obama on foreign policy, and BARBARITY that many radical muslims share their feelings of pure hatred of the western world that it doesnt matter whether its me you or the western hating Damsi in distress, these people look at us one and as an enemy to destroy .

stryder wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 10:35am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 10:05am: [quote author=pansi1951 link=1419895002/43#43 date=1419981183] I don't admire terrorists and did you miss the question about what was accomplished by going to war? To some people you have to either support stupidity or you are supporting the terrorists. People can be stupid on both sides of spectrum whether political or social, but the one thing that is clear on any argument when it comes to STUPIDITY that many lefties think collectively and produce stupid results like we have seen from Obama on foreign policy, and BARBARITY that many radical muslims share their feelings of pure hatred of the western world that it doesnt matter whether its me you or the western hating Damsi in distress, these people look at us one and as an enemy to destroy .

There's radical Muslims, but not enough of them to worry me. I've got much more chance of dying in a car accident than at the hands of a radical Muslim.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 9:58am:

stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 9:19am: Of course you do, you admire any anti western scum you can find, that feeling flows from nearly every post I read from you, and im not the only one who thinks so. You'll never understand if you only see black and white, there's so much in between that you'r not seeing. Oh i understand alright with you is that the west is black, and the rest of the world is white, your not that subtle about it, There's millions of people around he world that can see the injustices of the west, it doesn't mean they've switched allegiance, they've simply acknowledged how it really is, not how they're told it is, or how they want to believe it is because they're afraid of how it really is. Of course but when you have to compare the political systems and what millions out there THINK, all you have to do is read about the flow of these so called asylum seekers to the western world, whether if it africans crossing the mediteranean to europe or the arabs, afghans crossing the sea to australia on leaky boats, or central and southern americans crossing the border into america, i think they would overlook its blemishes the ones that you HOLD ON TO WITH SUCH FEELING, because the western democratic systems offer more hope of a better life than the one they left behind. I mean there not going the other way to North Korea or China, ? Not everyone can peel back the layers of conventional wisdom and say, ‘What the mainstream is telling you isn't right, this is how things really are.’

stryder wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 8:54am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:44am: freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 5:31am: Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there. So why did they bother taking us on at all? To them we had invaded their country. Anybody who thought that they were not going to dispatch us the same way they did with the Russians is a tad naive. So you believe that America and its allies should not have tried and attemped to do what they did over there in afghanistan, or at least try  ???

Try?

Someone better tell Stryker we tried and we failed.

Better luck next war, Stryker.

stryder wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 10:35am:

these people look at us one and as an enemy to destroy .

Someone tell Stryker we invaded their country and deposed them.

Karnal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 12:21pm:

stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:54am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:44am: freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 5:31am: Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there. So why did they bother taking us on at all? To them we had invaded their country. Anybody who thought that they were not going to dispatch us the same way they did with the Russians is a tad naive. So you believe that America and its allies should not have tried and attemped to do what they did over there in afghanistan, or at least try  ??? Try? Someone better tell Stryker we tried and we failed. Better luck next war, Stryker.

The Afghan people and in particular the woman and girls are in for a rough future.

The do-gooders will be on here demanding we do something about the Taliban when they never got behind the Americans.

brumbie wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 8:57pm:

ColdFact wrote on Dec 30th, 2014 at 8:45pm: brumbie wrote on Dec 30th, 2014 at 8:06pm: Very shortly the Taliban will resume control , but worse still, when the ISIS twats have been disbanded in Syria/Iraq then they will as sure as apples etc firm up with the Taliban, who by now are in charge of Afghanistan again, and they will both make a concerted effort for Pakistan and the Golden Nuclear Egg, and then it's "Good Night Vienna" for everyone. So the Taliban is going to attack Pakistan?  Considering the history of the Taliban, that's very funny Brumbie. I don't find 130 dead schoolchildren funny Coldfact!! That was distasteful.

Interesting deviation from my comment on your political and historical prowess.  Mate, seriously, is that snow just on your avatar or have you been shoving that shite up  your nose?

stryder wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 10:35am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 10:05am: [quote author=pansi1951 link=1419895002/43#43 date=1419981183] I don't admire terrorists and did you miss the question about what was accomplished by going to war? To some people you have to either support stupidity or you are supporting the terrorists. People can be stupid on both sides of spectrum whether political or social, but the one thing that is clear on any argument when it comes to STUPIDITY that many lefties think collectively and produce stupid results like we have seen from Obama on foreign policy, and BARBARITY that many radical muslims share their feelings of pure hatred of the western world that it doesnt matter whether its me you or the western hating Damsi in distress, these people look at us one and as an enemy to destroy .

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/poo/guy-pooping.gif

Karnal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 12:21pm:

stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:54am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:44am: freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 5:31am: Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there. So why did they bother taking us on at all? To them we had invaded their country. Anybody who thought that they were not going to dispatch us the same way they did with the Russians is a tad naive. So you believe that America and its allies should not have tried and attemped to do what they did over there in afghanistan, or at least try  ??? Try? Someone better tell Stryker we tried and we failed. Better luck next war, Stryker.

Why dont you do what you do best, Carnal

Follow Matty around like some stalker on these boards and be a silly bugger about it along the way.

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 12:34pm:

The do-gooders will be on here demanding we do something about the Taliban when they never got behind the Americans.

The fact is rocketanski that the afghan people didnt wanna fight hard enough to keep the taliban away as well.

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 12:34pm:

The do-gooders will be on here demanding we do something about the Taliban when they never got behind the Americans.

Why would you expect people to get behind a plan that could not win. Many people died in this conflict and it was never going to solve any problem about the Taliban.

The US and Australia went into Afghanistan with basically the same plan that failed for the Russians. The tactics in place were always going to result in us just giving up and going away in the end.

This isn't in support of the Taliban or anti American - it is just the truth.

freediver wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 10:02am:

How much do the Taliban control?

Primarily the Pushtan speaking areas of Afghanistan, FD.  Outside of the provinces where those tribes predominate their sway is a lot weaker.

Much will now depend on how much the West is prepared to support the central government in Kabul.   As long as Western support and aid is maintained, the Kabul government will be able to pay to keep the warlords which presently support it, on side.  As the Najibulla government showed, it is possible for an installed government to exist in Afghanistan - as long as the support continues.  Once it is withdrawn, down will come the central government.

It also depends on how much the weak alliance that is "the Taliban" can stay together.   If the Kabuli government is smart, it will go back to how the old rulers of Afghanistan controlled the country - divide and rule.  Play the various internal factions off against each other.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 31^st, 2014 at 9:13am:

stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 9:05am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:58am: stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:40am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:34am: stryder wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:15am: freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 5:31am: Quote: Taliban claims victory in Afghan War As predicted by almost everyone from day 1. To them it was always going to be a war of attrition played out on their terms and in the end we were always going to leave and they were still going to be there. So why did they bother taking us on at all? Maybe Dnaever didnt want the western world to respond after what happened on 9/11 or attempt to change the situation in afghanistan that led to the rise of Al Qaeda. The response achieved what exactly? More blood shed. The rise of ISIS. You expect the western nation to sit on there hands when we have radical muslims running around the world, who wanna go forward and attack us when ever possible ??? I'm wondering if our 'War on Terror' made terrorism stronger, they seem to be growing. We don't seem to be killing many of them, only innocent civilians and our own soldiers.....oh! they pop off a few of their own from time to time, as we do, accidentally of course. Once again, what has our response achieved?....apart from keeping the industrial war machine well oiled. It was when the socialistic Barrack Obama as US president came into the scene and that was when the terrorists and the tryrannical despots that you secretly admire BECOME EMBOLDENED. I don't admire terrorists and did you miss the question about what was accomplished by going to war?

Just this and left widows without husbands and children without fathers.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/content/dam/images/2/5/r/w/3/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.25rvq.png/1347454489757.jpg

Just this and left widows without husbands and children without fathers.

In twenty years time the children will ask what the hell was their fathers thinking to get themselves in that situation.

Afghanistan was a failed state. No-one was actually in control. There was no-one to negotiate with. There were hundreds of warlords in various alliances involved in a protracted civil war. At best, they would have ignored the US, though most would have sought a bit of fame by sticking it to the Americans.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/1996afghan_%281%29.png/220px-1996afghan_%281%29.png

Map of the situation in Afghanistan in late 1996, showing Massoud (red), Dostum (green), and Taliban (yellow) territories.

It has nothing at all to do with ISIS.

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2015 at 9:42am:

Afghanistan was a failed state. No-one was actually in control. There was no-one to negotiate with. There were hundreds of warlords in various alliances involved in a protracted civil war. At best, they would have ignored the US, though most would have sought a bit of fame by sticking it to the Americans. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/1996afghan_%281%29.png/220px-1996afghan_%281%29.png Map of the situation in Afghanistan in late 1996, showing Massoud (red), Dostum (green), and Taliban (yellow) territories. It has nothing at all to do with ISIS.

What kind of negotiations do you mean?

At the moment the president of Afghanistan is the democratically elected Ashraf Ghani, and before him Hamid Karzai. That is hardly a victory for the Taliban.

More than 5000 schools have been built, with more than 7 million students, over 35% of whom are female. There is an American university in Kabul and many Lincoln learning centers. Compared to what happened after the soviet withdrawal, this bodes well for the future of the country.


Quote:

What kind of negotiations do you mean?

I was referring to discussions earlier in the thread that we should have negotiated with them after 9/11 rather than invading.


Quote:

I'm wondering if our 'War on Terror' made terrorism stronger, they seem to be growing. We don't seem to be killing many of them, only innocent civilians and our own soldiers.....oh! they pop off a few of their own from time to time, as we do, accidentally of course.

We have slaughtered them in huge numbers. Instead of sophisticated attacks on western nations with mass casualties, they are scrambling to put together improvised roadside bombs to take out their own democratically elected leaders and institutions. Had we done nothing, attacks on western nations would have grown worse than 9/11.


Quote:

The US and Australia went into Afghanistan with basically the same plan that failed for the Russians.

Crap. The two could not be more different, and you have to be pretty desperate to find fault to try to equate them.

Thank Allah the grown-ups are back in charge.