The War in Afghanistan

[VictortheMonarch]

Interesting. Guess that Arab generosity doesn't come cheap even when Arabs are rich, eh?

yeah. I fully expect that at some point the chinese will write an even longer bill to get their hands on him, and the arabs will go along with it like the pretty bugs they are.

 

[WolfBear]

yeah. I fully expect that at some point the chinese will write an even longer bill to get their hands on him, and the arabs will go along with it like the pretty bugs they are.

Why would the Chinese want him? They have enough of their own intellectuals and aren't big believers in the diversity game.

 

[VictortheMonarch]

Why would the Chinese want him? They have enough of their own intellectuals and aren't big believers in the diversity game.

The Chinese are allied to the Taliban, and the Taliban want's to take Pakistani land, which is also a Chinese Ally. By taking him, then giving him to the Pakistani's, a war could be avoided.

 

[WolfBear]

The Chinese are allied to the Taliban, and the Taliban want's to take Pakistani land, which is also a Chinese Ally. By taking him, then giving him to the Pakistani's, a war could be avoided.

What could the Pakistanis want to do with him, hough?

 

[VictortheMonarch]

What could the Pakistanis want to do with him, hough?

... to avoid war? most nations tend to want to avoid war if it's not in their best interest. especially when they're technically allied.

 

[History Learner]

You might be interested in this article:

Observations on Afghanistan

I shall take this opportunity to share some observations on the situation in Afghanistan, based on what I’ve read over the last few days, and learned since the conflict began. I have no particular expertise on Afghanistan, but I offer as a defence the palpable lack of veracity and foresight...

noahcarl.substack.com

That was done based on false intelligence, which is a tragedy, but different from a conscious murder of civilians.

40% of total civilian casualties in Afghanistan were via American/NATO airstrikes. At a certain point it stops being mistakes and starts becoming criminal negligence at best.

 

[WolfBear]

40% of total civilian casualties in Afghanistan were via American/NATO airstrikes. At a certain point it stops being mistakes and starts becoming criminal negligence at best.

How does this compare with Iraq and Libya?

Also, your data appears to contradict the data here:

UN: Taliban Responsible for 76% of Deaths in Afghanistan

The Taliban's responsibility for the vast majority of civilian deaths is perhaps the most underreported story from Afghanistan since the war began....

www.fdd.org

 

[History Learner]

How does this compare with Iraq and Libya?

Also, your data appears to contradict the data here:

UN: Taliban Responsible for 76% of Deaths in Afghanistan

The Taliban's responsibility for the vast majority of civilian deaths is perhaps the most underreported story from Afghanistan since the war began....

www.fdd.org

No idea and that article is from 2010, just as the Surge into Afghanistan was starting.

 

[WolfBear]

No idea and that article is from 2010, just as the Surge into Afghanistan was starting.

Interesting. I'll see if I can try finding more data on this.

 

[Chiron]

UN: Taliban Responsible for 76% of Deaths in Afghanistan

The Taliban's responsibility for the vast majority of civilian deaths is perhaps the most underreported story from Afghanistan since the war began....

www.fdd.org

FDD is just a plain propaganda Deep State Think Tank.

None of its data was correct. One they relied solely on the say so of NATO and ANA spokesmen and did not do on-the-ground investigations. Most folks blown up by the NATO-ANA strikes were innocent civilians who fell afoul of some warlord or just happened to be in the wrong spot at the wrong time and looked suspicious to some drone operator on utterly specious grounds.

Fact is, the NATO and ANA Forces were routinely attacking and killing civilians and settling Tribal Feuds for Legitimized Warlords. They are responsible for the bulk of the civilian deaths and undermined all support for the Central Government.

 

[History Learner]

FDD is just a plain propaganda Deep State Think Tank.

None of its data was correct. One they relied solely on the say so of NATO and ANA spokesmen and did not do on-the-ground investigations. Most folks blown up by the NATO-ANA strikes were innocent civilians who fell afoul of some warlord or just happened to be in the wrong spot at the wrong time and looked suspicious to some drone operator on utterly specious grounds.

Fact is, the NATO and ANA Forces were routinely attacking and killing civilians and settling Tribal Feuds for Legitimized Warlords. They are responsible for the bulk of the civilian deaths and undermined all support for the Central Government.

All true, but personally for me the biggest turning point was us letting child rape go unhindered and even ordering our own troops to let it go when it was happening on base with our "allies". Hell, it has even emerged the CIA was giving warlords Viagra and shit so they could keep on raping kids; it was one of the "perk"s of working with them. Then when you add us aiding and abetting the heroin trade, the civilian casualties, the rampant corruption, etc....

 

[WolfBear]

All true, but personally for me the biggest turning point was us letting child rape go unhindered and even ordering our own troops to let it go when it was happening on base with our "allies". Hell, it has even emerged the CIA was giving warlords Viagra and shit so they could keep on raping kids; it was one of the "perk"s of working with them. Then when you add us aiding and abetting the heroin trade, the civilian casualties, the rampant corruption, etc....

Should have given them child sex dolls instead, frankly. Seriously. Could have prevented actual kids from getting molested, which would have been a huge win. And of course severely punishing anyone who molests actual kids.

 

[Chiron]

Should have given them child sex dolls instead, frankly. Seriously. Could have prevented actual kids from getting molested, which would have been a huge win. And of course severely punishing anyone who molests actual kids.

Japan actually creates quite realistic Loli Dolls, not going to link them, just do a search.

 

[WolfBear]

Japan actually creates quite realistic Loli Dolls, not going to link them, just do a search.

Yeah, I've previously heard about that. IMHO, there should be an honest inquiry as to whether such dolls are a viable permanent alternative to castration for some people with pedophilic inclinations. I'd certainly loath to arrest people for such dolls if they haven't actually harmed any actual living beings.

But Yeah, back to Afghanistan, I suspect that their pederasty problem is a deep-rooted one. Perhaps something to do with conservative Muslim attitudes towards premarital sex. If they can't get any women, they just end up having sex with young boys who sort-of look like girls--or at least look androgynous--instead. Very sad and tragic considering that it's essentially child rape.

 

[Marduk]

40% of total civilian casualties in Afghanistan were via American/NATO airstrikes. At a certain point it stops being mistakes and starts becoming criminal negligence at best.

Don't fall into leftist narratives (nor advertising brochures from PGM manufacturers) on such matters. Most of the serious law of war was written in the aftermath of either WW1 or WW2.
Remember, carpet bombing whole cities with fleets of strategic bombers that could at best be trusted to place most the bombs within the zipcode they were aiming for most of the time was a-ok in those wars.
Let that sink in regarding how much beyond the minimum standard western forces go nowdays in dealing with the little wars in the third world. Even if they don't go so far beyond it as they would want.

All true, but personally for me the biggest turning point was us letting child rape go unhindered and even ordering our own troops to let it go when it was happening on base with our "allies". Hell, it has even emerged the CIA was giving warlords Viagra and shit so they could keep on raping kids; it was one of the "perk"s of working with them. Then when you add us aiding and abetting the heroin trade, the civilian casualties, the rampant corruption, etc....

That was worse from the perspective of western countries, both their political standing and own troop morale, than any amount of civilian casualties.
Either you try "nation building" and go full James Napier, or you don't bother wasting the money and pretending you do if you don't have the stomach and sufficient fuck you attitude towards international organizations to back it up.

 

[History Learner]

Don't fall into leftist narratives (nor advertising brochures from PGM manufacturers) on such matters. Most of the serious law of war was written in the aftermath of either WW1 or WW2.
Remember, carpet bombing whole cities with fleets of strategic bombers that could at best be trusted to place most the bombs within the zipcode they were aiming for most of the time was a-ok in those wars.
Let that sink in regarding how much beyond the minimum standard western forces go nowdays in dealing with the little wars in the third world. Even if they don't go so far beyond it as they would want.

No, because those were war crimes as well and were recognized as such even by the perpetrators; the general expectation was that if the Germans won, Harris would be hanged as a war criminal and he should've been on the docket it at Nuremburg, along with many others on the winning side. It was a case of might makes right, not legal right and damn sure not ethically either.

That was worse from the perspective of western countries, both their political standing and own troop morale, than any amount of civilian casualties.
Either you try "nation building" and go full James Napier, or you don't bother wasting the money and pretending you do if you don't have the stomach and sufficient fuck you attitude towards international organizations to back it up.

You're a butcher if you think that was worse than the wanton slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians, especially children. That removed all support for us from the population, who returned to supporting the Taliban and had a direct impact on not just our morale, but the moral standing of our nations and the cause at large. We didn't lose because we weren't brutal enough-we had literal CIA hit squads going around and mass murdering civilians-we lost because we were objectively more evil in the eyes of the Afghan population than the Taliban.

 

[WolfBear]

No, because those were war crimes as well and were recognized as such even by the perpetrators; the general expectation was that if the Germans won, Harris would be hanged as a war criminal and he should've been on the docket it at Nuremburg, along with many others on the winning side. It was a case of might makes right, not legal right and damn sure not ethically either.



You're a butcher if you think that was worse than the wanton slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians, especially children. That removed all support from us from the population, who returned to supporting the Taliban and had a direct impact on not just our morale, but the moral standing of our nations and the cause at large. We didn't lose because we weren't brutal enough-we had literal CIA hit squads going around and mass murdering civilians-we lost because we were objectively more evil in the eyes of the Afghan population than the Taliban.

You might be interested in this, HL:

Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–2021) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to the United Nations, anti-government elements were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011.[124][125]

2009-2011 were peak surge years, and yet the Taliban + al-Qaeda were responsible for 3/4 or more of all civilian casualties in Afghanistan during this time, at least according to the United Nations.

 

[Marduk]

No, because those were war crimes as well and were recognized as such even by the perpetrators; the general expectation was that if the Germans won, Harris would be hanged as a war criminal and he should've been on the docket it at Nuremburg, along with many others on the winning side. It was a case of might makes right, not legal right and damn sure not ethically either.

That is a particular way of interpreting this comment.
If might makes right, or even more so, bends what passes for international legalities to own favor, well, why should there be exceptions for that rule, for these particular wars of all the things?
What is the legal right in this matter, and who gets to decide and judge that?

You're a butcher if you think that was worse than the wanton slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians, especially children.

WTF, what hundreds of thousands of civilians? What kind of propaganda numbers are you using?

Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–2021) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

During the War in Afghanistan, according to the Costs of War Project the war killed 176,000 people in Afghanistan; 46,319 civilians, 69,095 military and police and at least 52,893 opposition fighters. However, the death toll is possibly higher due to unaccounted deaths by "disease, loss of access to food, water, infrastructure, and/or other indirect consequences of the war."[1] According to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, the conflict killed 212,191 people.[2]

That removed all support from us from the population, who returned to supporting the Taliban and had a direct impact on not just our morale, but the moral standing of our nations and the cause at large. We didn't lose because we weren't brutal enough-we had literal CIA hit squads going around and mass murdering civilians-we lost because we were objectively more evil in the eyes of the Afghan population than the Taliban.

Implying that Afghan preferences in the governance of the country have absolutely anything to do with the criteria used by western moralizing observers of the self-flagellating kind. Not that the Taliban got much support from local population, out of sympathy at least.
The biggest deal in support was literally that, a deal. Taliban did exactly the same thing the cartels, other organizations effective in eluding US hostility, use.
Plata o plomo. Silver or lead.

REPORT: Afghan Military Commanders Bribed by Taliban to Surrender Cities, Equipment

redstate.com

Afghan military commanders mostly have chosen silver.
Did the US military send those infamous CIA hit squads to kill them for choosing silver?
No. As they and the Taliban expected.
Something that will be known in any future conflict where US proxies will get put before a similar choice by someone else.

 

[History Learner]

That is a particular way of interpreting this comment.
If might makes right, or even more so, bends what passes for international legalities to own favor, well, why should there be exceptions for that rule, for these particular wars of all the things?
What is the legal right in this matter, and who gets to decide and judge that?

I was actually attacking the concept of might makes right, no defending it.

WTF, what hundreds of thousands of civilians? What kind of propaganda numbers are you using?

Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–2021) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The 100,000 to 200,000+ thousand you literally cited; those hundreds of thousands.

Implying that Afghan preferences in the governance of the country have absolutely anything to do with the criteria used by western moralizing observers of the self-flagellating kind.

What?

Not that the Taliban got much support from local population, out of sympathy at least.
The biggest deal in support was literally that, a deal. Taliban did exactly the same thing the cartels, other organizations effective in eluding US hostility, use.
Plata o plomo. Silver or lead.

REPORT: Afghan Military Commanders Bribed by Taliban to Surrender Cities, Equipment

redstate.com

Afghan military commanders mostly have chosen silver.

No, they won the support of Afghanistan's population, including the women, by being objectively better than the GIRoA and not, you know, slaughtering civilians in recent years unlike us.

Did the US military send those infamous CIA hit squads to kill them for choosing silver?
No. As they and the Taliban expected.
Something that will be known in any future conflict where US proxies will get put before a similar choice by someone else.

Except we literally did do that, including targeted killing of civilians.

 

[Marduk]

I was actually attacking the concept of might makes right, no defending it.

Which is all fine and dandy, but still doesn't answer the question of who in fact does decide what the law is?

The 100,000 to 200,000+ thousand you literally cited; those hundreds of thousands.

Which if you bothered to read the link would show you clearly that those aren't civilian deaths, but total deaths.

During the War in Afghanistan, according to the Costs of War Project the war killed 176,000 people in Afghanistan; 46,319 civilians, 69,095 military and police and at least 52,893 opposition fighters. However, the death toll is possibly higher due to unaccounted deaths by "disease, loss of access to food, water, infrastructure, and/or other indirect consequences of the war."[1] According to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, the conflict killed 212,191 people.[2]

People = civilians + insurgents + service members. Is it that hard to do basic substraction?
Total civilians killed (as in including those killed by insurgents) are not even in hundreds of thousands.

No, they won the support of Afghanistan's population, including the women, by being objectively better than the GIRoA and not, you know, slaughtering civilians in recent years unlike us.

And by your own links not much of that grand moralizing involving civilian deaths. Its more about Afghan government being shit, and being particularly shit in rural areas, which is not exactly a contestable claim. However, choices are choices, and now they are going to get a comparison for how shit Taliban governance is, with no alternative choice in sight.

Except we literally did do that, including targeted killing of civilians.

December 18 2020, 11:01 a.m.

No, clearly can't be what i've described, as the biggest betrayals happened in 2021, and obviously couldn't have been retaliated for and written about before they happened.
But it does suggest one of major problems in the whole operation - the US government tolerated far too much dodgy behavior and general shittiness from Afghan officials, and had no arrangements to inflict adequate consequences on them for it.