Afghan blast - mirrors of Iraq?

Jonny7

Starting in about late '04/05, there was a concerted effort by foreign extremists to "brew up" a civil war in Iraq between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq - targeting large groups of civilians on both sides in a bombing campaign - it never turned into a full blown civil war, but it came very close.

In Afghanistan today nearly 60 people blown up in what appears to be along the same lines. Another large step backwards.

Jonny7

Jonny7 wrote: »

Starting in about late '04/05, there was a concerted effort by foreign extremists to "brew up" a civil war in Iraq between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq - targeting large groups of civilians on both sides in a bombing campaign - it never turned into a full blown civil war, but it came very close.

In Afghanistan today nearly 60 people blown up in what appears to be along the same lines. Another large step backwards.

Explosions in Afghanistan? Surely not!

Jonny7

Well that's one way of looking at it.

The Outside Agency

jonny7 wrote:

In Afghanistan today nearly 60 people blown up in what appears to be along the same lines. Another large step backwards

Was it a step forward when US foreign policy advisors (Brzezinski) recommended training and funding extremists (Mujahideen) back in the 1970s?

Then we had the Taliban and Al Qaeda, then an invasion.

Look at the mess over there now...nice work.

Jonny7

nivekd wrote: »

Was it a step forward when US foreign policy advisors (Brzezinski) recommended training and funding extremists (Mujahideen) back in the 1970s?

Then we had the Taliban and Al Qaeda, then an invasion.

Look at the mess over there now...nice work.

Well that didn't take long

The Outside Agency

Why do you create these kind of threads?

What do you want me to say?

"Yes, you're right again, jonny7, I agree"

Will that make you happy for the day?

JustinDee

nivekd wrote: »

Was it a step forward when US foreign policy advisors (Brzezinski) recommended training and funding extremists (Mujahideen) back in the 1970s?

Then we had the Taliban and Al Qaeda, then an invasion.

Look at the mess over there now...nice work.

The alternative was to leave the USSR to continue running riot in the country. What would have followed would be the 'outraged' wailing about how the Afghan people are being left to rot and die under Soviet oppression as they were.
Al-Qaeda wasn't formed in Afghanistan, by the way.
Taleban formed as a result of Pakistan assisting a govt sympathetic to an anti-Indian cause particularly over hotly contested Kashmir. And the Mujahadin were not only supported by the US but by NATO en masse, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and Libya. It was the cold war and a hotly fought theatre of operations by both sides.

Jonny7

nivekd wrote: »

Why do you create these kind of threads?

What do you want me to say?

"Yes, you're right again, jonny7, I agree"

Will that make you happy for the day?

No one's twisting your arm to participate?

The Outside Agency

JustinDee wrote:

The alternative was to leave the USSR to continue running riot in the country.

'Running riot'

There was a pro-soviet government there but I don't know what you're talking about when you say "riot"

Can you give examples?
Were they 'running riot' in other Soviet states?

What would have followed would be the 'outraged' wailing about how the Afghan people are being left to rot and die under Soviet oppression as they were.

What followed was 30 years of misery which is unlikely to improve anytime soon.

Al-Qaeda wasn't formed in Afghanistan, by the way.

Osama Bin Laden was funded by the CIA to fight USSR, correct?
That was my point, not where or when his group was created.

Taleban formed as a result of Pakistan assisting a govt sympathetic to an anti-Indian cause particularly over hotly contested Kashmir. And the Mujahadin were not only supported by the US but by NATO en masse, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and Libya. It was the cold war and a hotly fought theatre of operations by both sides.

Yes, but who provided most financial assistance, weapons and training?

The USSR didn't invade Afghanistan until AFTER US provided support for extremists through some of the third party states you mention, they were basically sponsering terrorism for their own agenda.

After the USSR invaded, more direct support was provided.

I'm not defending USSR or extremist muslims, just quoting history.

OS119

nivekd wrote: »

Osama Bin Laden was funded by the CIA to fight USSR, correct?...

no, OBL was funded almost entirely by Saudi 'charities' with the Pakistani ISI taking a cut. lots of the other groups with unpleasent social policies were funded by CIA - and everyone else - but OBL both didn't want US/Western cash, and didn't need it, indeed he used his position as a conduit of Gulf cash to persuade other groups (mainly wahabbist, Pashtun based groups) to stop accepting US/Western aid and take his money instead, meaning they fell more under his (and more importantly, Allawhi's) influence and began to freeze the US out of the southern Afghan groups. the Europeans had long since shifted away from Pakistan where the could and were aiding the northern and western (equally unpleasent) based groups (with the help of Iran), and US followed suit.

rough estimates suggest that funding of the myriad Afghan/Pakistani groups from the gulf states - both government and private donations - dwarfed western funding by a 10:1 ratio.

'The Looming Towers' by Lawrence Wright is considered a very good reference point by serious AQ/OBL watchers - its much better that conspira-loonery websites.

JustinDee

nivekd wrote: »

'Running riot'
There was a pro-soviet government there but I don't know what you're talking about when you say "riot"

Can you give examples?

Assassinations via proxy, potshots at Indian military FBs via Kashmir for example. Reprisals over entire regions following attacks such as the infamous 9th offensive.

nivekd wrote: »

Were they 'running riot' in other Soviet states?

They were and still are, even minus the 'Soviet' moniker. See Russia's near-neighbours Chechnya, Dagezstan, Kazakhiztan, Turkmenistan plus of course the poking and prodding in Sth Ossetia at Georgia.

nivekd wrote: »

What followed was 30 years of misery which is unlikely to improve anytime soon

Are you saying no intervention should have taken place?

nivekd wrote: »

Osama Bin Laden was funded by the CIA to fight USSR, correct?
That was my point, not where or when his group was created

Again, you seem to suggest that nobody doing anything about what was going there would have been a better option.

nivekd wrote: »

Yes, but who provided most financial assistance, weapons and training?

As I said, the US (via CIA), Pakistan (via ISI) and Saudi Arabia (via GIP).

nivekd wrote: »

The USSR didn't invade Afghanistan until AFTER US provided support for extremists through some of the third party states you mention, they were basically sponsering terrorism for their own agenda.

After the USSR invaded, more direct support was provided

I said it was a Cold War theatre. Both sides were at it. How do you think the pro-communist party got into power in the first place? And how do you think it was replaced by another?

nivekd wrote: »

I'm not defending USSR or extremist muslims, just quoting history.

You're not quoting. Like me, you're paraphrasing. I'm going by memory of mainly three books I've read on the subject, namely Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars", Crosston's book on 'Fostering Fundamentalism' and Ziegler's study of Foreign Policy in East and Central Asia.
Another excellent tome on the subject is a book called "Crossroad and Conflict" by a collection of authors (American, Russian, British and a Norwegian). It covers the history of conflict in Central Asia and the Caucasus.

Don't bother giving me wiki-wags in reply. I'm just saying there is a lot more to the state of that nation's predicament than the evil claws of the big bad western Satan where you and I come from.

The Outside Agency

JustinDee wrote:

Don't bother giving me wiki-wags in reply. I'm just saying there is a lot more to the state of that nation's predicament than the evil claws of the big bad western Satan where you and I come from.

Fine, I'll dig out some declassified documents from the US government (from their own website) which you and OS119 can interpret whatever way you want. Unfortunately I don't have time right now, but i'll get them for you later since you lot need to be spoonfed everything.

Cork boy 55

gaff is like yuogslavia
fake state in terms of ethic make-up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan

Cork boy 55

Afganistan is like yugoslavia X 10

Shia verus Sunni, Hazara verus Pushton conflict,
this goes back centuries.
The shia Hazaras had their own homeland in central Afganistan called the Hazarajat
The Hazarjat remained virtual independent until 1893 when it was conqured by the pashtun(quite brutally)
The sectarian emity between the sunni pastuns and shia hazarar goes back a long way but the Taliban brought a new
edge to the conflict for they treated all shias as beyond the pale of islam.


There was a whole serious of massacres in the 1990's during the various civils wars. Too many to list.(not just hazara verus puston of course)
The current conflict is a tea-party compared to the 1990's(no offense)

two of the biggest ones
In may 1997 a Hazara militia(with others) double-crossed the taliban at mazar and wiped
out a whole regiment of taliban in an ambush included 10 top commanders and
ISI operatives(who where always embedded with taliban units during 1990's even during the worst masscares)
and it turned out hundreds of Pakistani boys.
It was the worst taliban defeat ever over 3000 dead and 3600 prisoners

The taliban/ISI swore revenge

In august 1998 after the fall of Mazar,after the taliban got the upperhand they conducted a brutal ethic cleansing campaign against the hazara shia.
The shia where given three choices death exile to Iran or covert to sunni islam.
The Taliban, for 6 days were reported to have gone door to door looking for male Hazara Shias and then subsequently
executing them. Thousands of prisoners were transported in metal transport truck containers where many
suffocated or died of heat stroke.
They took the hazara women as concubines.
400 where counted in one caravan heading south alone
they took so many that it started a great theological debate in Taliban inner circles on the morality of it.
One taliban general(dost) was jailed by mullah omar for bringing two back because his wife complained not because he brought them back.


Why now? why shia targeted?
ISI divide and conquer
The ISI are behind this they want to control as much as afganistan as possible thru their proxies after NATO leaves.
The more secartarian strife for them the better.
The hazara are the most pro-iranian group least pro-pakistani group
in afganistan thats why they where targerted

JustinDee

nivekd wrote: »

Fine, I'll dig out some declassified documents from the US government (from their own website) which you and OS119 can interpret whatever way you want. Unfortunately I don't have time right now, but i'll get them for you later since you lot need to be spoonfed everything.

What are you going to try to prove? The deaths at the hands of the USSR's occupation and preceding manipulation with Afghan governments never happened? It was a bed of roses?

You're not spoonfeeding anyone so pop down from your perch. If anyone needs to expand their reading material, its you.

The Outside Agency

JustinDee wrote:

What are you going to try to prove?

That you don't know everything, of course.

JustinDee wrote:

The deaths at the hands of the USSR's occupation and preceding manipulation with Afghan governments never happened? It was a bed of roses?

Nope.

You're not spoonfeeding anyone so pop down from your perch.

Speak for yourself.

If anyone needs to expand their reading material, its you.

Well, suggest something worth reading and maybe I'll consider it.

Cork boy 55

Taliban by Ahmed Rashid is a great book for waht happened during the 1990's
regarding the taliban rise to power 1995-2000


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban:_Militant_Islam,_Oil_and_Fundamentalism_in_Central_Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Rashid

JustinDee

nivekd wrote: »

That you...etc

A tad childish methinks.

nivekd wrote: »

Well, suggest something worth reading and maybe I'll consider it.

I already did.

The Outside Agency

JustinDee wrote: »

A tad childish methinks.

Yes, couldn't agree more.

In fact I can't be bothered to locate those declassified documents which contradicts your previous posts claiming Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya provided more assistance than the US.

I know you're wrong but it's too much of my time to care really.

You'll find them searching http://www.foia.cia.gov/search.asp

JustinDee

nivekd wrote: »

Yes, couldn't agree more.

In fact I can't be bothered to locate those declassified documents which contradicts your previous posts claiming Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya provided more assistance than the US.

I know you're wrong but it's too much of my time to care really.

You'll find them searching http://www.foia.cia.gov/search.asp

Don't be lazy.
Link or quote these alleged contradictions if you want to be seen as the expert on all things Afghan. Prove that Saudi Arabia for example didn't fund billions into the conflict and while you're at it prove that Pakistan and its ISI didn't provide the largest logistical, combat and intelligence network to these combatants.
The books I listed outline pretty well what went on. I suggest you read them since you asked for them.

Jonny7

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Why now? why shia targeted?
ISI divide and conquer
The ISI are behind this they want to control as much as afganistan as possible thru their proxies after NATO leaves.
The more secartarian strife for them the better.
The hazara are the most pro-iranian group least pro-pakistani group
in afganistan thats why they where targerted

The ISI are the problem child, they don't do a tap to stem militant extremism which are targeting their own civilians, yet will turn over the whole country to look for one CIA informant.

The Outside Agency

JustinDee wrote:

Don't be lazy.

"Lazy" and "childish" don't get personal...

If you're in Washington near National Security Archive, you can request under the FOIA access to the directive which Jimmy Carter signed in July 1979.

It's discussed in 'Breeding ground: Afghanistan and the origins of Islamist terrorism.'

The description of the secret directive states:

"Support insurgent propaganda and other psychological operations in Afghanistan; establish radio access to the Afghan population through third country facilities.Provide unilaterally or through third countries as appropriate support to Afghan insurgents, either in the form of cash or non-military supplies"

Even though there was an insurgency with support provided by persian gulf and arab states, without doubt, US support changed everything.

Robert Gates (Current US Secretary of Defence) confirms this in his book 'From The Shadows'

"By the end of August, Pakistani President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq was pressuring the United States for arms and equipment for the insurgents in Afghanistan..."

"When Turner (Director of CIA) heard this, he urged the DO to get moving in providing more help to the insurgents"

"They responded with several enhancement options including communications equipment for the insurgents via the Pakistanis or the Saudis, funds for the Pakistanis to purchase lethal military equipment for the insurgents, and providing a like amount of lethal equipment ourselves for the Pakistanis to distribute to the insurgents"

My argument earlier was Pakistani support was only possible because of funding from the US.. you dispute this based on some books you read but I believe you only have half the picture.

Initially, the budget for insurgency in 1980 was $30 million but this increased under Reagan to $630 million in 1987 according to Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden.

I never disputed the Pakistanis or other states helped the insurgency but what I do disagree with is your belief the US were "dwarfed" in terms of financial and military support...no other country provided support like the US and that is pretty much evident in most historical literature.

If the Pakistanis were able to fund the insurgency by themselves, why ask the US for help? Tough question, isn't it?

I'm sure you're quite capable of finding out much more information by yourself...or maybe not.

Honestly, I really don't care what yourself, Jonny7 or OS119 believe...believe what you want but the proof is there in black and white.

JustinDee

You're quoting a wikipedia article.
I never said anyone's participation in funding was "dwarfed" either. I said that due to the massive involvement of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (you surely know how much the Saudis pumped in via ISI?), the usual US-bashing was a little myopic to be taken on board as the be all and end all.

Jonny7

Article from the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/07/kabi-attacks-suicide-bombing?INTCMP=SRCH

Points to Pakistani related splinter group. This is clearly a new "policy" most likely from the direction of NW Pakistan with the direct intent of fermenting sectarian strife. Not so convinced about Iranian involvement, would be very indirect I'd say.

The Outside Agency

JustinDee wrote: »

You're quoting a wikipedia article.

I'm quoting the books, inconvenient for you, I know.

I never said anyone's participation in funding was "dwarfed" either. I said that due to the massive involvement of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (you surely know how much the Saudis pumped in via ISI?), the usual US-bashing was a little myopic to be taken on board as the be all and end all.

Well, OS119 did, but you did say this:

JustinDee wrote:

Taleban formed as a result of Pakistan assisting a govt sympathetic to an anti-Indian cause particularly over hotly contested Kashmir. And the Mujahadin were not only supported by the US but by NATO en masse, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and Libya. It was the cold war and a hotly fought theatre of operations by both sides.

nivekd wrote:

Yes, but who provided most financial assistance, weapons and training?

JustinDee wrote:

As I said, the US (via CIA), Pakistan (via ISI) and Saudi Arabia (via GIP).

"By the end of August, Pakistani President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq was pressuring the United States for arms and equipment for the insurgents in Afghanistan..."

"When Turner (Director of CIA) heard this, he urged the DO to get moving in providing more help to the insurgents"

"They responded with several enhancement options including communications equipment for the insurgents via the Pakistanis or the Saudis, funds for the Pakistanis to purchase lethal military equipment for the insurgents, and providing a like amount of lethal equipment ourselves for the Pakistanis to distribute to the insurgents"

Repeating myself a little, but I doubt very much the Pakistanis could match the same year on year financial contributions as the US and supply the insurgency with advanced weaponary and equipment....

Now you're saying it isn't relevant because it's also quoted in Wikipedia?
I didn't lift the information from Wikipedia but I don't see how it's even relevant.

Verify the information in Robert Gates book (Current US Defense Secretary), verify the directive of Jimmy Carter with National Security Archives....it's all there.

JustinDee

nivekd wrote: »

Repeating myself a little, but I doubt very much the Pakistanis could match the same year on year financial contributions as the US and supply the insurgency with advanced weaponary and equipment....

Oh peace...Have you ever heard of the GID? Part of the problem was their solution to any problems in the area thought of as solvable with a cheque book. The Saudi money trail was so vast, it is virtually impossible to summate between 1972 and 2000 what they pumped into the warring factions, the ISI and every other ally involved in Afghanistan.

nivekd wrote: »

Now you're saying it isn't relevant because it's also quoted in Wikipedia?
I didn't lift the information from Wikipedia but I don't see how it's even relevant

I'm saying any old duffer can post a one-sided or half-research wikipedia article.

nivekd wrote: »

Verify the information in Robert Gates book (Current US Defense Secretary), verify the directive of Jimmy Carter with National Security Archives....it's all there.

As I said, you're only giving one side of the story and ignoring every other flipping factor involved with the region with the overthrow of the Soviet puppet govt and the subsequent Soviet invasion.
All you're arguing about is money too, which was only part of the equation in a conflict.
You asked for a reading list. I gave it. I suggest you give it a whirl.

The Outside Agency

So you concede I was right all the time and you just love to moan about how evil muslims are?

JustinDee

nivekd wrote: »

So you concede I was right all the time and you just love to moan about how evil muslims are?

Firstly, you are not "right". You're just banging on about the States being the problem when there were plenty of other nations dipping their beak in with massive consequences. This isn't a competition. You're selective in your description on what has gone on in Afghanistan since the early 70s.

Secondly, inferring that I'm anti-muslim is nothing more than a baseless pathetic last-resort slur from some anonymous moniker on the internet.
Go read up.

The Outside Agency

JustinDee wrote:

Firstly, you are not "right". You're just banging on about the States being the problem when there were plenty of other nations dipping their beak in with massive consequences. This isn't a competition. You're selective in your description on what has gone on in Afghanistan since the early 70s.

I argued the US were the biggest support hands down and they were, there's no question, you're unable to disprove this.

All those arab states you mentioned don't develop any weapons that could beat the USSR..take for example the stinger missiles, a US product.

Name some weapons any of those arab states were making to be used to fight the USSR back in the 80s...if it weren't for the US, the insurgents wouldn't have had a hope in hell.

Secondly, inferring that I'm anti-muslim is nothing more than a baseless pathetic last-resort slur from some anonymous moniker on the internet.

Total hypocrite.

Anyone who criticises US foreign policy is automatically painted by you as Anti-US which is rubbish. Plenty of US citizens are critical of US foreign policy, are they Anti-US also? Weak argument.

Go read up.

I'm waiting for you to start up a blog so I can read that instead.
Anyway, we both know you're wrong now, that's the matter settled.

JustinDee

nivekd wrote: »

I argued the US were the biggest support hands down and they were, there's no question, you're unable to disprove this.

All those arab states you mentioned don't develop any weapons that could beat the USSR..take for example the stinger missiles, a US product.

Name some weapons any of those arab states were making to be used to fight the USSR back in the 80s...if it weren't for the US, the insurgents wouldn't have had a hope in hell

Without Saudi Arabian and Pakistani support and involvement, what happened wouldn't have happened.

nivekd wrote: »

Total hypocrite.

Anyone who criticises US foreign policy is automatically painted by you as Anti-US which is rubbish. Plenty of US citizens are critical of US foreign policy, are they Anti-US also? Weak argument

You claimed I was anti-muslim. The subject of the thread isn't even muslims or anything to bloody well do with Islam.
You insisted on the US being the main cause of the problem in Afghanistan with your reference to their involvement. I mentioned other nations without whom the conflict would never have developed as it did.

nivekd wrote: »

I'm waiting for you to start up a blog so I can read that instead.
Anyway, we both know you're wrong now, that's the matter settled.

Don't be silly.
That reading list you asked for should be tapped into. Don't be subjective or tunnel-visioned. Try and actually expand upon your available source of information instead of subjectively settling for what suits.

The Outside Agency

JustinDee wrote:

Without Saudi Arabian and Pakistani support and involvement, what happened wouldn't have happened.

Same can be applied to US.

You claimed I was anti-muslim

.

You claimed I was childish, lazy, silly and Anti-US all in the same thread but I noticed you didn't receive any infractions.

OS119 insinuated I read 'conspira-looney-websites' -- no infraction.

The subject of the thread isn't even muslims or anything to bloody well do with Islam.

Well, Afghanistan is an Islamic nation so it's certainly relevant.
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, which the NATO currently occupies.

You insisted on the US being the main cause of the problem in Afghanistan with your reference to their involvement.

Are they not? Who currently occupies the country? The "mission" is led by US forces, is it not?

I mentioned other nations without whom the conflict would never have developed as it did.

And all I argued was without US support, the insurgency would never have been successful. It couldn't be because the arabs didn't have the technology.

You interpret this as being anti-american which really is silly.

Don't be silly.
That reading list you asked for should be tapped into. Don't be subjective or tunnel-visioned. Try and actually expand upon your available source of information instead of subjectively settling for what suits.

Again, speak for yourself, this is exactly how you behave on most of the threads you contribute to.

Example: "The Great Satan" -- WTF is that? you're being silly.

JustinDee

nivekd wrote: »

Same can be applied to US

Nobody said otherwise, except you. You post as if the US is the cause of it all and the reason Afghanistan went like it did in the 70s and 80s.

nivekd wrote: »

You claimed I was childish, lazy, silly and Anti-US all in the same thread but I noticed you didn't receive any infractions

Childish based on a reply. Lazy because you wouldn't link what you said would apparently trump everything I wrote and (typical of the forum actually) anti-US because of the omission of everybody else involved.

nivekd wrote: »

OS119 insinuated I read 'conspira-looney-websites' -- no infraction

Matter for the mods, I'd say. Nothing to do with me.

nivekd wrote: »

Well, Afghanistan is an Islamic nation so it's certainly relevant

It is not relevant. I am not anti-muslim nor was anything I posted anti-muslim.

nivekd wrote: »

The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, which the NATO currently occupies

Subject we were discussing was the roots of the problems in 70s, 80s, 90s Afghanistan. Not the current invasion.

nivekd wrote: »

Are they not? Who currently occupies the country? The "mission" is led by US forces, is it not?

I suggest you stop ignoring what has been highlighted and start re-reading thread again to see where the point of replies came from.

nivekd wrote: »

And all I argued was without US support, the insurgency would never have been successful. It couldn't be because the arabs didn't have the technology.

You interpret this as being anti-american which really is silly

See earlier replies. Without the other countries involvement and the level of their involvement, it would never have resulted as it did.

nivekd wrote: »

Again, speak for yourself, this is exactly how you behave on most of the threads you contribute to

Leave the modding to the moderators, I'd say.

nivekd wrote: »

Example: "The Great Satan" -- WTF is that? you're being silly.

You posted as if the involvement of the US was actually something that should never have happened. I mentioned the likely consequences of non-US involvement already.

Happy reading.

The Outside Agency

JustinDee wrote:

I suggest you stop ignoring what has been highlighted and start re-reading thread again to see where the point of replies came from.

I don't have to, US are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 attacks where the US helped with other nations (as you pointed out) foster Islamic terrorism.

Without the other countries involvement and the level of their involvement, it would never have resulted as it did.

Yes, they're as much to blame for the Afghan problem as US, I agree but you don't seem to agree US offered as much assistance, do you?

You're not much of a match for the USSR without money and weapons, US provided that to the insurgents.

A proxy war.

JustinDee

nivekd wrote: »

I don't have to, US are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 attacks where the US helped with other nations (as you pointed out) foster Islamic terrorism

What the US along with NATO is doing there now is not the point. Someone, maybe you maybe not, mentioned Mujahidin as if they were avoidable. They weren't. They were the only option possible to combat the Soviet-puppet govt and subsequent Soviet forces.

nivekd wrote: »

Yes, they're as much to blame for the Afghan problem as US, I agree but you don't seem to agree US offered as much assistance, do you?

Where did I say I didn't?? I didn't single out one nation in any of this.

nivekd wrote: »

A proxy war.

The Cold War spawned "proxy wars" globally.

Jonny7

nivekd wrote: »

I don't have to, US are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 attacks where the US helped with other nations (as you pointed out) foster Islamic terrorism.

Look there have been dozens of threads on US in Iraq/Afghanistan. Look up those or start your own. Many here are already very aware of the hypocrisy of US foreign policy over last few decades we don't need it inserted into threads (e.g. check the Russian election thread)

This thread is to do with the potential sectarianism emerging in Afghanistan.

The Outside Agency

jonny7 wrote:

This thread is to do with the potential sectarianism emerging in Afghanistan.

Well, obviously it's all Russias fault, isn't it?

Dr Galen

I have developed such a multi-quote pain in my face reading all that.

Thats not discussion or debate lads, thats taking pot shots and sniping at each other across the keyboard. It's also not acceptable tbh.

No sanctions, this time, but next time there will be

Cheers

DrG