FD was it not enough that you so blatantly misrepresent me by falsely accusing me of saying the taliban treated their women better than the Saudis? How much more petty gotchas are you going to attempt before you bother to simply read back on what I actually said?

And now apparently the question of whether the US should have invaded Afghanistan now boils down to whether or not Afghan women self censored.

I'm not sure where that bizarre curve ball came from FD. Is it possible you are mixing up threads? Or are you saying its actually Indonesian women who get shot in the back of the head for reading, and you posted in the wrong thread?

Forgive me if it seems you are grasping here. But if you ever feel like addressing the actual topic, here's some food for thought:

Quote:


I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts FD. I think the last word on the subject was you insisting that the US was forced into war by bin Laden (I agree) - but then seeming to insist that the only way the US could prosecute that war was to invade, overthrow and occupy Afghanistan (which turned into a clusterfvck of monumental proportions). I think it would have been interesting to explore that question further, and firstly to confirm you do indeed hold that this was the only viable option, and if so, why you wouldn't have contemplated an option that saves the US the burden of years of occupation and fighting a bloody insurgency. But alas you just descended into clever gotchas to prove that gandalf loves the taliban. Then again I shouldn't be surprised - the thread title being what it is after all...

John Smith wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 8:29pm:


Excuse me, FD, what sound does a jellyfish make?

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 8:53am:


I doubt it, I think they are on about a par. Not that its a terribly useful thing to try and compare - given the completely different economic and political environments (eg Saudi women by default have a better standard of living - by simple virtue of living in a far wealthier country). But if you really wanted to understand my thoughts on the matter, you could always take notice of what I've already said. I mean lets be honest here FD, this latest inquisition only started after I caught you out blatantly misrepresenting me by saying I claimed taliban women were treated better than Saudi women. Sorry for saying so FD, but this really does seem like a desperate face-saving exercise on your part - to make your blatant and proven misrepresentation somehow seem more presentable. Basically, and not to put too fine a point on it, rather than simply show some contrition, you plough on with your belligerence. So you'll forgive me if I decide not to endulge you in this FD face-saving exercise - and depart this little tangent by referring you to what I've already said on the matter

I take it also you repeatedly ignoring my attempts to bring this thread back to the actual point of the discussion - ie your actual reasons for why you think there was definitely no alternative to invasion, overthrow and occupation in responding to 9/11, and that suggesting there was is tantamount to apologising for Islamofascism - you will not be partaking any further in this discussion? That would indeed be a shame if that were the case.

Since you are being so specific, I'm assuming this was an actual incident that happened, and which can be verified. (though in passing I must say I haven't found anything in my initial search). In any case, its not in dispute that some pretty horrific atrocities happened under the taliban.

As for "on par" with such an atrocity or similar, does blocking a whole group of school girls from escaping a fire and letting them suffocate to death because they are immodestly dressed count FD?

No doubt you are au fait with the female human rights activists who are currently locked up and being tortured in Saudi prisons, including one who has just been sentenced to beheading? This was for such high crimes as advocating for women to be allowed to drive.

I'm sure Issue would have an entire laundry list of Saudi atrocities he'd be only too happy to provide you with FD, if you were really interested. Then you can compare and contrast with the taliban till your hearts content.

Anyway, I'll take that as confirmation that you are not going to talk anymore about the justification of the invasion, and why you insist invasion, overthrow and endless occupation was the only acceptable response to 9/11. Shame 

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 6:08pm:


Your ignoring of my question. But if you're having second thoughts, here it is again:

Quote:

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 9:28am:


My 'absurd fantasies' shouldn't preclude you from having an opinion on whether or not invasion, regime change and decades of occupation was the best (only?) viable response to 9/11. But I take it from your continued refusal to answer this as confirmation that you do in fact believe it was the only viable option.


freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 9:28am:


Can you verify this claim FD?

I'd be surprised if it turns out that capital punishment for girls under 8 was an "actively enforced policy" under the taliban.

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 12:12pm:


Sorry FD, but nowhere in either of those links can I see anything about executing girls under 8 for learning to read being an "actively enforced policy". I'd be surprised if any under 8 year old girls were executed under the taliban - for anything.

I'm all for condemning the taliban for the atrocities they committed - and there were many. But do you really think it helps making things up about them?

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 12:12pm:


Personally I think just about anything would have been better than the horror that was unleashed by the invasion and overthrow. I'd be interested to know what your threshold limit of deaths and suffering is, or if you even have one, before you draw the line and say "you know, maybe 'sticking it to the muslims' on that occassion wasn't actually worth it"

Anyway, now that the US are now in direct high level negotiations with the taliban in Doha, it would seem that they are simply doing what they could and should have done 17 years ago - minus the invasion and 10s of thousands of dead...

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/taliban-talks-resume-doha-2-day-break-190...

Keeping in mind, this was the US approaching the taliban, something they could have done 17 years ago, but refused to - a belligerence some US officials themselves described as a "missed opportunity". As it turns out the taliban are actually quite open to compromise, even when they are on the ascendancy militarily, to the extent that they are reportedly even open to the idea of US troops remaining - :

Quote:


Quote:


https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-secret-taliban-talks-to-end-americas-lo...