How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

[Peter Dow]

The costs associated with the attack of a small group of Saudi Arabians on the WTC were primarily driven by the unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the attack itself. The tactical value of a terrorist act is the in foolhardiness of the enemy responding disproportionately. The United States and its coalition of the willing could not have responded more favorably to serve the objectives of the terrorist band. Thanks to the absurd response of the US and others to 9/11 most people now live in what amounts to police states where vast sums are spent on security measures that simply enrich security services. I'd say the terrorists have already won the so-called War on Terror.

Even if all the plans you propose were implemented and the Taliban were defeated and all Muslims became the West's preferred brand of Christian the security state will remain. The war's over, we lost.

Well we have suffered casualties, more than we should have, because there has been poor, inept, incompetent leadership by the generals and their political masters but our ordinary soldiers have fought bravely for our freedom from terrorism and although some lost their lives the war is far from lost.

You are Canadian Stephen? Let me post this video in tribute to the Canadian war dead.



They fought so that today there wouldn't be a jihadi police state in Canada locking you and other forum members up for breaking Sharia law. As far as I know, you are relatively free to post in this forum? If I am wrong about that and if you are not free but subject to a police state looking over your shoulder then let's fight that police state together Stephen. I've had my issues with the Queen's police here in Scotland and I'd like nothing better than to join with Canadians suffering issues with your Queen's police too.

Also this is a war against terrorism, it isn't a war against responsible Islam or to impose Christianity. It isn't a crusade and there's no inquisition after us Stephen.

There's a lot of bad incompetent government about and a lack of constitutional freedoms as of right because some of us don't have a republican constitution nor a democratically elected president to defend our rights, but none of the failings of the constitutional monarchy and the countries it disadvantages, such as Canada and Scotland are because of us fighting the war on terror, unless I am badly misinformed and I like to think I know a thing or two.

[The Decider]

They fought so that today there wouldn't be a jihadi police state in Canada locking you and other forum members up for breaking Sharia law.ng the war on terror, unless I am badly misinformed and I like to think I know a thing or two.

In your opinion, how exactly is the Taliban planning to set up a jihadi police state in Canada?

[Zeebadee]

Excuse me, Adolph, but I haven't seen a single reference to what Russia or China might do to counter our takeover of the middle east. How do you plan to deal with direct military intervention by either country?

[Peter Dow]

In your opinion, how exactly is the Taliban planning to set up a jihadi police state in Canada?

Well the Taliban did host Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as did the ISI in Pakistan, and Al Qaeda have global ambitions for imposing Sharia law. There has been Sharia law imposed in many countries. The Taliban imposed Sharia law in Afghanistan where before there was no Sharia so I guess Al Qaeda imagined they could impose it in other countries too or would have a go at it anyway and see us standing in the way of any plans they have?

I never claimed Al Qaeda, the global jihadi guests of the Taliban and the ISI had or have a well-thought out plan to achieve their full aims but they certainly did have a plan for USA 9/11 and London 7/7 terrorist attacks and they have new plans for such terrorist attacks all the time, in Canada if they could, and it is indeed plans like that we need to defend against in the war on terror.

So us prosecuting the war on terrorism stops both the individual terrorist attacks and foils Al Qaeda long before they get anywhere near their aims of a jihadi police state in Canada, Scotland or in other Western countries.

The absurdity of the suggestion that Al Qaeda could have a well thought out plan for a jihadi police state in Canada is as absurd as Stephen suggesting that we have lost the war on terrorism and that somehow in some unspecified way, if that's what Stephen meant, terrorists might rule Canada unopposed, whether that might be a jihadi terrorism or perhaps he meant some kind of royalist state police state imposed by the Queen's police?

I am not really sure what Stephen meant by "losing the war on terror" but I am sure we haven't lost it, not in Canada anyway.

[Peter Dow]

Excuse me, Adolph,

That's gratuitously offensive. I'm an active anti-Nazi. I'd object to you continuing to troll or derail this serious topic in such a manner. Please let this be the end of your hostile approach to a complete stranger. A stranger is just a friend you do not know.

but I haven't seen a single reference to what Russia or China might do to counter our takeover of the middle east. How do you plan to deal with direct military intervention by either country?

We should seek common ground with the Russians in particular who have fought the Taliban and other jihadists on many occasions, not least because Russia can help, or at least not hamper, the Northern Distribution supply routes into Afghanistan.



So good point from a military strategy point of view. You are correct to seek to avoid an enemy on both sides which makes it such a pity you didn't simply make your good point without your offensive "Adolph" reference.

[Zeebadee]

That's gratuitously offensive. I'm an active anti-Nazi. I'd object to you continuing to troll or derail this serious topic in such a manner. Please let this be the end of your hostile approach to a complete stranger. A stranger is just a friend you do not know.


We should seek common ground with the Russians in particular who have fought the Taliban and other jihadists on many occasions, not least because Russia can help, or at least not hamper, the Northern Distribution supply routes into Afghanistan.



So good point from a military strategy point of view. You are correct to seek to avoid an enemy on both sides which makes it such a pity you didn't simply make your good point without your offensive "Adolph" reference.

My apologies, I was being flippant. In any case, the Russians and Chinese are already opposing our efforts to effect a regime change in Syria, and also opposing us in Iran. I doubt you'll get much cooperation from either, and you may even precipitate preemptive stationing of troops from both in countries in your subject areas. You then run the risk of direct military action against those major powers. If you can't find common ground now, what makes you think you can after hostilities commence?

[Thanatos]

So terrorism is a death-multiplier. The lethal consequences of terrorism ripple out from the particular terrorist actions. When those in the World Trade Center were killed on 9/11 think of the consequences to world trade, the global economy, how much we could raise globally in taxes, how much we could afford to spend in cancer medical research, how many lives we could have saved otherwise.

Think of the total cost of invading all the oil-rich countries and coping with the resulting diplomatic and economic shitstorm. Think of all the future terrorists you'd inspire by such a heavy-handed imperialistic action.

[The Decider]

Well the Taliban did host Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as did the ISI in Pakistan, and Al Qaeda have global ambitions for imposing Sharia law. There has been Sharia law imposed in many countries. The Taliban imposed Sharia law in Afghanistan where before there was no Sharia so I guess Al Qaeda imagined they could impose it in other countries too or would have a go at it anyway and see us standing in the way of any plans they have?

You've mentioned Taliban/AQ "plans" for a jihadi state in Canada several times now. Imagined or not, those "plans" must have some logic to them.

Don't look to Afghanistan or Pakistan though. Those nations have active and numerous radical Islamic groups. But Canada? Walk me through that one. The Taliban/AQ are multiple thousands of miles and two oceans distant from North America. They number in the low thousands, at least in active military/insurgents. They have no navy and no air force nor any reasonable prospects of acquiring them. Muslims number well under 5% of Canada's total population and even fewer consider themselves Taliban/AQ sympathizers. Not exactly the stuff of jihadi state conquest.

So the Taliban and AQ can put Canada or America on their imperial wish list but in reality such "plans" defy reality, now and in the future. But using Taliban/AQ megalomania to scare Canadians and Americans into wider conflicts in the Middle East, wars they do not support, is unfortunately all too real.





I

[barts]

They fought so that today there wouldn't be a jihadi police state in Canada locking you and other forum members up for breaking Sharia law.

Canada committed troops in Afghanistan for no other reason to placate the Americans for Canada's decision not to participate in the invasion of Iraq. The Taliban, Afghanistan, and Iraq never posed a security threat to Canada. As well, the Muslim community in Canada does not and has never poses a security threat.

Canada's soldiers were killed and injured, and now generally neglected by the government, for no other reason than political expediency.

As far as I know, you are relatively free to post in this forum? If I am wrong about that and if you are not free but subject to a police state looking over your shoulder then let's fight that police state together Stephen. I've had my issues with the Queen's police here in Scotland and I'd like nothing better than to join with Canadians suffering issues with your Queen's police too.

In Canada, the government of the day uses the notion of security to increase its general surveillance of Canadians. In terms of threats to Canada or individual Canadians terrorism of any kind is less a risk than lightning strikes.

Also this is a war against terrorism, it isn't a war against responsible Islam or to impose Christianity. It isn't a crusade and there's no inquisition after us Stephen.

It's not possible to have a war against a military tactic. "Terrorism" is a tactic.

There's a lot of bad incompetent government about and a lack of constitutional freedoms as of right because some of us don't have a republican constitution nor a democratically elected president to defend our rights, but none of the failings of the constitutional monarchy and the countries it disadvantages, such as Canada and Scotland are because of us fighting the war on terror, unless I am badly misinformed and I like to think I know a thing or two.

The War on Terror is the excuse, in part, being used in Canada to diminish the privacy rights of Canadians. National security claims have been used by the current government to avoid its legal obligations to its citizens.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

Canada committed troops in Afghanistan for no other reason to placate the Americans for Canada's decision not to participate in the invasion of Iraq. The Taliban, Afghanistan, and Iraq never posed a security threat to Canada. As well, the Muslim community in Canada does not and has never poses a security threat.

How is this possible when Canada's involvement in the Afghan war began in October 2001 (and regular troops deployed in early 2002), and Iraq was not invaded until March 2003?

Canada's role in the Afghanistan War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[barts]

How is this possible when Canada's involvement in the Afghan war began in October 2001 (and regular troops deployed in early 2002), and Iraq was not invaded until March 2003?

Canada's role in the Afghanistan War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the initial attack on Afghanistan, Canada committed about 100 troops in solidarity with the US. However, it's major involvement didn't commence until after its decision not to follow Bush to Baghdad.

[DTrace]

Unocal wanted to build the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan gas pipeline, but the Taliban didn't play ball. After lots of negotiations, they were finally warned by US representatives that "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs". Since they still refused, they were carpet bombed due to the phony "war on terror".

A Timeline of Oil and Violence - Afghanistan