(November 30, 2018 at 11:56 am)Cherub786 Wrote:

(November 30, 2018 at 11:37 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: I, personally, joined the service so that I could go and be a peacekeeper...you know, to help safeguard those personal liberties that abusive states and actors had robbed people of.  Boy howdy, what a monster!

Noble intentions. But the problem with joining the armed forces is you have to obey orders. You don't have a choice as to where you will be deployed. This is why I encourage people not to join the military or the police. Perhaps its just the freedom lover in me, I could never put on a uniform and become a "yes sir" "no sir" person. We were meant to be free.
Until I figure out how to separate quotes excuse me for writing in red!


More horseshit.  One of the few things that our founding documents expressly permit the government to do (rather than the laundry list of don'ts) is to smack a warlord and all of his mercs directly in the mouth.  It's not even so much that this is permitted...it's the stated obligation of our government to do so...and it's to this end, not the support of fucking warlords, that we arm ourselves.  

You have a disturbing affinity for warlords and the countries being ruined by them for a person so concerned with personal and religious liberties.

In a truly anarchist society there will naturally have to be warlords to ensure that a foreign power doesn't come in and try to impose order on what it considers to be chaos. It was the Afghan warlords who kicked Soviet butt and truly fulfilled the American anarchist slogan "We are ungovernable" (I saw that in the video you posted on this thread)
I admit I have a certain romantic notion about warlords, especially when they are fighting Goliath.

I also have an affinity for gun culture. I don't think any country is truly free until ordinary people can fire their machine guns or rifles or whatever into the air to celebrate a birth, wedding, etc. The servile Chinese peasant cannot even imagine that kind of freedom.

Yes with American, Saudi & Pakistani money, training and arming.
They never made any progress until their leaders were invited to the White House.
American Stinger missiles won the war; along with the harsh Afghani terrain.
It's technically the whole world against the USSR; even Rambo fought the soviets. The international war was so massive that it is still ringing in our ears until now.

Truth of the matter is that we "won" the cold war (then againb...take a look at the current state of the whitehouse) because we organized and funded a massive campaign of global subversion and proxy war.  The soviets weren't as good at that game as we are, and their wallets weren't long enough withstand the siege. The current owners of the russian fed appear to have been taking notes, though!

Or, you know, blah blah blah, reaganite "evil empire".

(November 30, 2018 at 11:45 am)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(November 30, 2018 at 5:01 am)Cherub786 Wrote:

• It's not as simple as saying Saudi exported Wahhabism. First you have to understand what Wahhabism is, what Deobandi is, who Syed Qutb was, who Abd al-Salam Farag was, etc. It's a lot more nuanced than what people generally think. You have to know the major players in Afghanistan during the war of the 1980s, including Osama bin Laden, but also Abdullah Azzam, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Ahmad Shah Massoud, Abdul Rashid Dostum, Abdur Rabb Rasul Sayyaf, Burhanuddin Rabbani. Then you have to understand where the Taliban came from, you have to know who the late Sami ul-Haq was, the Panjpiri school of Deobandis, etc. Until you understand all of these intricacies you will stick to the simplistic idea of saying Saudi exported Wahhabism and that created al-Qaida, Taliban, etc. Since Wikipedia is your source I encourage you to read more about these names I have listed for you on Wikipedia so you can increase your knowledge on the issue.
  

I studied in a Wahhabi school all my youth.
The famous hellish book of "Mohammed Ibn Abdul-Wahhab":كتاب التوحيد الذي هو حق الله على العبيد -The book of Tawhid- was ringing in my fucking ears for 12 years. This is the book behind most "Jihadist militias" in the world today, so never lecture me about what Wahhabism is or question my knowledge with it; instead I lecture you. اسمعوا واطيعوا ولو ولي عليكم عبد اسود كان راسه زبيبة, huh? Teaching kids that is pure evill; you know.

How is it evil?

Sayed Qutb was a "Muslim brotherhood" affiliate; he never belonged to the Wahhabi death cult.

Syed Qutb is the single strongest influence on al-Qa'ida, and on Jama'at al-Jihad (the group that Zawahiri belonged to). His ideas about jahiliyyah is what gave birth to the modern Takfiri tendency.

Wahhabism does not really have a political aspect to it. A "Wahhabi" is basically any Muslim that is against folk practices that are polytheistic and neo-pagan, like venerating tombs, trees, wearing amulets, etc. In that sense I would describe myself as a Wahhabi. Shaikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab was a great religious reformer, you could say the Martin Luther of Islam.

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi. The Taliban studied at the hands of the Sauds. enough said; your post is a "names sandwitch", trying to overwhelm my point and my facts with the names of people who had nothing to do with the Afghan war.

Yes, but Bin Laden was influenced by Zawahiri who was not a Saudi. Zawahiri was an Egyptian. He is the one that poisoned Osama's mind and made him adapt the Takfiri ideology.

And all the names I mentioned were deeply involved in the Afghan war.

Answer my evidence then we talk. Never drift away from the point.

The Taliban were refugees in Pakistani camps, who studied in Wahhabi schools sponsored by Saudi Arabia, just like my previous comment told you quoting from wikipedia.
Since you love names, check Osama bin Laden's nationality.

Wrong, the Taliban founders were students of Deobandi madaris. Do you know the difference between Saudi Salafism and Deobandism, the latter originating from Deoband, India?
Deobandis are muqallidin of the Hanafi school, while Salafis reject Taqlid. Deobandis acknowledge and promote Sufism. Deobandis are Maturidis in theology, while Salafis are Athari in theology.

BTW these wires are electric cables.
These bags that cover the face smell literally like shit and were used to contain shit.
We didn't see what they did behind cameras; but we hear it was nightmarish.
The soviets killed people in airstrikes, just like the U.S did.

US soldiers did indeed commit atrocities in Iraq, but as I said, they pale in comparison to what the Soviets did, to what the Chinese are doing right now.
And this Abu Ghraib scandal at least came out in the public and action was taken against the perpetrators. Did the Soviets ever bring any of their war criminals to justice?

The whole world should cut ties with the Saudi regime, previous kings were psychopaths too but they knew how to hide; MBS is a little bit simple, probably it's the drug he takes.
Nobody want the Sauds to rule as a family. They must go. All of them.

I tend to agree. I hate the Saudi government, especially MBS who is the most authoritarian manifestation of the Saudis to date. I also hope and pray the Saudi dynasty collapses and our Holy Land is liberated from that God forsaken family.


"outrageous"? buddy; you are defending the Sauds and Assad; and lecturing me about what is outrageous?

Nope I never defended the Saudis or Assad

The current Shiite government in Iraq is by far worse; the comparison between Iraq now and Iraq in Saddam's reign is enough to reply to your point.

Keep repeating "Baathism" like a parrot is very laughable -if you excuse me-; the Baathist are long gone. The "CD" is getting old, you know.

Assad is a Baathist. The Baathists are not long gone. The Baathists just went underground after 2003. They were the driving force behind the terrorism and so-called insurgency post-Saddam. And guess who were the brain behind ISIS? Baathist military officers!

(November 30, 2018 at 12:06 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Truth of the matter is that we "won" the cold war (then againb...take a look at the current state of the whitehouse) because we organized and funded a massive campaign of global subversion and proxy war.  The soviets weren't as good at that game as we are, and their wallets weren't long enough withstand the siege.  The current owners of the russian fed appear to have been taking notes, though!

Or, you know, blah blah blah, reaganite "evil empire".

Yes, that is what I was saying to cherub786: the U.S won that war, and utilized its allies perfectly (used the men from Saudi Arabia, used the intelligence reports of Pakistan, and used its own media and propaganda and weapon technology) to form a deformed strong fist that took the USSR down for good.

The future brought the Russians back as they learned from the Afghani experience, and flipped the table against the U.S.A: Russia created its own Islamic proxy -represented in the Shiite camp in the Middle East- to confront the American Sunni proxy.

Russia is supporting Assad (a Shiite), Iran (a Shiite state) while the U.S is supporting Saudi Arabia (a Sunni state).

The soviets weren't good at the game. But Putin has plans to change that.

I don't know how anyone could imagine that a ruling dynasty is "godforsaken".  Nothing happens but by the will of allah..and they seem to be doing splendidly! 

For all the hubbub, MBS is the very picture of an effective and efficient prince.  That's what makes him so dangerous, lol. He's handsome, rich, well connected, a smooth talker, seemingly benevolent to his people in the face of those who would oppress them, while being ruthless and decisive in the business of crushing any competition to his authority or legitimacy.

(November 30, 2018 at 12:19 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(November 30, 2018 at 12:06 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Truth of the matter is that we "won" the cold war (then againb...take a look at the current state of the whitehouse) because we organized and funded a massive campaign of global subversion and proxy war.  The soviets weren't as good at that game as we are, and their wallets weren't long enough withstand the siege.  The current owners of the russian fed appear to have been taking notes, though!

Or, you know, blah blah blah, reaganite "evil empire".

Yes, that is what I was saying to cherub786: the U.S won that war, and utilized its allies perfectly (used the men from Saudi Arabia, used the intelligence reports of Pakistan, and used its own media and propaganda and weapon technology) to form a deformed strong fist that took the USSR down for good.

The future brought the Russians back as they learned from the Afghani experience, and flipped the table against the U.S.A: Russia created its own Islamic proxy -represented in the Shiite camp in the Middle East- to confront the American Sunni proxy.

Russia is supporting Assad (a Shiite), Iran (a Shiite state) while the U.S is supporting Saudi Arabia (a Sunni state).

The soviets weren't good at the game. But Putin has plans to change that.

I acknowledge the Americans, CIA and Pentagon greatly helped the Afghan mujahideen, especially with those stinger missiles. It was a beautiful operation, and it was for a good cause. How does that change anything?

The point I'm making is that the Afghan people were simply having none of that communist nonsense. It was only after the Americans saw their thirst for freedom and their willingness to fight did they realize they had an opportunity to undermine the Soviets without getting their own hands dirty.
If the Afghan people just sat back and allowed their country to become a Soviet satellite state like all those satellite states in Eastern Europe, there would never have been this opportunity to help the Mujahideen.
What this shows us is that certain peoples have different temperaments and different political cultures. Some like the Afghans obviously value freedom a lot and are allergic to authoritarianism.

It was more their willingness to fight than any thirst for freedom, that lead us to arm the shit out of them...and even more to the point their willingness to fight someone we were looking to kneecap.

That you think a bunch of oppressive islamist warlords are freedom lovers is the height of hilarity. They weren't freedom lovers, they were russia haters, which was pretty much the only question in the job interview for proxy warfare specialists. We didn't actually care whether or not they would just as soon turn their guns on us, because...you know, islamists rarely have a navy.........and it's a long swim from there to here.

(November 30, 2018 at 12:30 pm)Cherub786 Wrote: Some like the Afghans obviously value freedom a lot and are allergic to authoritarianism.

What the hell? Did you recently awaken from a three-decades-long coma?

More like he's currently living in a 13 century long religiously induced coma.  

Jacks complete lack of surprise.

(November 30, 2018 at 12:37 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(November 30, 2018 at 12:30 pm)Cherub786 Wrote: Some like the Afghans obviously value freedom a lot and are allergic to authoritarianism.

What the hell? Did you recently awaken from a three-decades-long coma?

The Taliban enforced religion on people, but that was already part of Afghan culture and norms. For example, burqas, beards, turbans, that has always been part of Afghan culture. Afghans have always been deeply conservative and religious people. The Mullas and Sufi mystics have always been very influential and powerful in that society.
But if you study the history of Afghanistan, you will learn that they have always had a strong anti-authoritarian bent in the sense that they never allowed for a strong central government to rule them. I've listened to the anthropologist Thomas Barfield's lectures on this point and he is spot on.

So I want to make a distinction between having a deeply conservative culture based on Religion and political authoritarianism.

I myself am a conservative Muslim, in terms of personal piety and ideas about morality, but politically I am libertarian and leaning toward anarchist ideas.

That is why I don't think that strict laws against narcotics, prostitution, porn and the like are bad. I am in favor of such laws. My libertarianism is not for these social issues but for political and civil liberty.