What countries recognised the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan in 2001?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 10^th, 2018 at 7:50am:


Spoken like a Nazi. Gandalf this is what you are championing as "effective":

Quote:


Also, can you explain how you go from this:



to "stable governing authority"? - keeping in mind that it was within this period that a terrorist organisation within their borders openly declared war on, then attacked, the most powerful nation on earth...

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2018 at 7:50pm:


Pakistan and I think the UAE if I remember correctly. It is of course irrelevant though to the question of whether Afghanistan was a 'failed state' under them

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2018 at 7:50pm:


Sounds effective to me. Very effective in fact.

And thanks for visually demonstrating how the Taliban gained such effective and comparatively stable control over most of the country between 1996 and 2001. That really gets the point across - effectively. Far more effective and stable than anything that has come and gone since.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 11^th, 2018 at 8:58am:


Are you saying that only two countries recognised the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, but this is not evidence it was a failed state?

Can you give any other examples of "stable and effective" governments that are not even recognised by most other nations?

Quote:


In one of those 4 maps, the Taliban controlled no territory. In another, only a fraction. No two maps are even remotely similar. They only lasted about 5 years. How is that stable? If they had only lasted 2 days, would you be telling us about how stable the country was in those two days? Is this another example of Muslims changing the meaning of common English words in an effort to rewrite history?

The allowed a terrorist organisation within their "control" to openly declare war on the most powerful nation on earth and start attacking them, bringing about their own destruction. How is that stable? Or effective?

Would you also argue we should have put the Nazis back in charge of Germany on account of their effectiveness? What, other than brutal oppression, is your goal post for effectiveness?

Would it be unfair to replace your "stable and effective" spin doctoring, with your real meaning you support the Taliban because they were brutal, oppressive, and attempting to seize control in an ongoing civil war?

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2018 at 12:32pm:


stable and effective and 'recognised by other states' are not mutually exclusive FD. I measure the effectiveness and stability of a country by how effective the control of the ruling authority is, and how much stability that provides in society. I really couldn't provide much better evidence for that than what you provided of doctors saying the taliban had a grip on the country as tight as Stalinist Russia. And visually, we see an excellent depiction in the maps you provided us of the taliban having by far the most control of the country than anything before or since. So well done on proving my point twice.

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2018 at 12:32pm:


LOL those two maps are 1.from 1992 - before the taliban even existed, and 2. after 2001 after the US invaded. Genius! 

1996 and 2001 look pretty similar to me. Do you need to get your eyes checked?

Quote:


If the alternative to keeping the nazis was close to 20 years of unrelenting carnage, no semblance of stable government and a growing security threat to the allies - at a time when the allies had no intention of committing the required resources and manpower to transition the country into a stable and viable democracy - then probably. Terrible analogy though, as the nazis were themselves expansionist and had designs on conquering its neighbours (obviously), and therefore already provided a threat to allied security. The taliban had zero aggressive/expansionist designs outside its own borders. The only link to international terrorism was AQ operating within their borders, but a peaceful negotiation could have (and should have) been reached on this front. And it should be noted that one of the main reasons the taliban tolerated AQ was that they provided indispensable money and manpower in their war against the northern alliance.

As usual, FleaDriver has corrupted this thread with his paid propaganda.

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2018 at 7:30pm:


I'm sure I could - China when it became communist for example, or Vietnam. But why would I bother? Its entirely irrelevant. In fact the main reason most of the world turned its back on the taliban is probably the same reason it was relatively effective - they were brutal bastards who controlled the population with an iron fist. But don't conflate "bad" and "brutal" with "unstable" and "ineffective" at providing stable governance.

Congratulations FD, you've wittled your entire case down to an utterly meaningless semantic exercise about the definition of "failed state". No more comparing maps that visually depicts the dominance the taliban had, or quoting doctors that confirm the very effective control the taliban had over the population.

Do you at least concede the point that nothing you have ever presented here contradicts my point (and in fact most of it supports it) that the taliban were an effective governing authority over Afghanistan, providing far more stability than anything seen since? I'm sure you disagree, but don't you think it would be better to actually address why this is actually wrong rather than making meaningless non-points about the diplomatic approach other countries took towards Afghanistan at that time?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 9^th, 2018 at 7:07pm:

It just proves, once again, that the Afghans, Iraqis, Pakis, Syrians - Muslisms - are not like us in the West. Give them the freedom to self-determine and they descend into chaos and bloodbath with NO FINAL GOAL IN SIGHT. The killing is all.

Muslims are nothing like Western people. They have inherited a 1400 year old brain rot that has given them nothing but chaos and bloodbaths and they simply cannot and will not compromise with each other, let alone with non-Muslims. There is simply no end to Muslim violence except the global caliphate which will not happen. So the son's of Mohamet will forever kill for the idiotic crap that Mohamet planted in their heads. They can't reform it, they can't repudiate it, they can't leave it lest they be killed - so the massacre for Submission will go on and on and on as it has been for 1400 years.

And now we have let them into our countries so the blood now flows here as well.

Quote:


Fine. Let's put the semantics aside. Do you concede I was right that Afghanistan was a failed state?

How "effectively" does a group control a country (or stabely for that matter) if they cannot stop a terrorist organisiation springing up, declaring war on the most powerful nation on earth, repeatedly attacking them and finally drawing them in to invading the country and setting up a new government, all within about 5 years of the group coming in to existence? And this invasion was with the support of most locals. On what planet is that either stable or effective?

If the Taliban had only lasted 2 days, would you be telling us about how stable the country was in those two days? Is this another example of Muslims changing the meaning of common English words in an effort to rewrite history?

Would it be unfair to replace your "stable and effective" spin doctoring, with your real meaning that you support the Taliban because they were brutal, oppressive, and attempting to seize control in an ongoing civil war?