Taliban endorses Trump

[Saint Frankenstein]

When the Taliban and their allies launch attacks on our soil and that of our commercial partners and allies that's very much our problem and that's precisely what they did and its not like they wouldn't have continued had they not been chased off. Plus, there is this whole human rights catastrophy thing that has to be taken into account. If attacking someone to save a portion of its population from human rights violation is often very touchy and risky, so can be innaction. Countries don't live in bubbles and neither should they.

And why did they attack us? Oh, it's because we attacked them and destroyed the country

America is not the world police and has no business telling anyone how to live. Hell, we violate the rights of sovereign nations all the time, so we have no room to talk about human rights violations when we've toppled democratically elected governments and propped up brutal dictators that murdered their citizens (multiple Latin American nations). We have our problems to address, which are extremely serious and going to lead to the end of the republic if we don't focus on them. Those people didn't ask for our help and don't want it.

 

[epronovost]

And why did they attack us? Oh, it's because we attacked them and destroyed the country

Actually. we helped them rise to power. The US helped the Taliban push back the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Note that the leaders of the movement were mostly Saudi which are allies of the US too and that the US isn't in any way shape or form the only target of the Talibans and other islamist terrorist groups. Spain, France, England, Canada, Germany, Italy, Pakistan, Australia, Indonesia, Egypt were all touched by attacks committed by them too.

Islamist extremists don't attack western countries because they wish to defend themselves. Most of their operations are actually directed against local population to ensure compliance or distabilise any rival. Sure painting themselves as brave defenders of Islam against western agression is a common propaganda tool for them and while there are actual real grievance to adress for westen intervention and behavior in the Middle East, they are only tools to be manipulated by these islamists whose objective goes far beyond that of adressing those grievances. They want power and set their values and their institution to change the face of the world order.

Those people didn't ask for our help and don't want it.

We are not there to help them either. We are there to defeat them. Where did you get this idea that Afghanistan was our friend and that we were there to help them? Ultimately, we toppling islamist ot of power and placing in power a more secualr autocrat or a pseudo-democratic regime instead does help the population since Talibans are simply terrible at governance in any way shape or form.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Actually. we helped them rise to power. The US helped the Taliban push back the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Note that the leaders of the movement were mostly Saudi which are allies of the US too and that the US isn't in any way shape or form the only target of the Talibans and other islamist terrorist groups. Spain, France, England, Canada, Germany, Italy, Pakistan, Australia, Indonesia, Egypt were all touched by attacks committed by them too.

Islamist extremists don't attack western countries because they wish to defend themselves. Sure painting themselves as brave defenders of Islam against western agression is a common propaganda tool for them and while there are actual real grievance to adress for westen intervention and behavior in the Middle East, they are only tools to be manipulated by these islamists whose objective goes far beyond that of adressing those grievances. They want power and set their values and their institution to change the face of the world order.



We are not there to help them either. We are there to defeat them. Where did you get this idea that Afghanistan was our friend and that we were there to help them? Ultimately, we toppling islamist ot of power and placing in power a more secualr autocrat or a pseudo-democratic regime instead does help the population since Talibans are simply terrible at governance in any way shape or form.

Look, we've had two decades of failed imperialistic "nation building" and it's totally blown up in our face. Since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, Islamic terrorism has skyrocketed around the world. It only made the problem much, much worse. All you're doing is proposing more of the same. We know that path is a total failure. So I'll just cut this short and say: no, thanks.

 

[epronovost]

All you're doing is proposing more of the same. We know that path is a total failure. So I'll just cut this short and say: no, thanks.

What you are proposing is letting them win and hope things magically get better. This has also failed. Both the Saudi regime headed by salafist extremist is alive and well and so does Iran headed by the mollah. Lebanon is falling again into chaos with religious extremist aligned to Iran being the most well placed to take over. Doing nothing isn't anymore a solution. It's less costly in the short run and that's it.

Yes, attacking with no plans and openning new fronts in a war for dubious reasons and little to no support is idiotic and has caused a lot of problems. What I'm suggesting isn't retreating, it's changing battle plans, cut your losses where need be, but keep the pressure and change tactics. The solution to losing battles isn't surrender, it's changing tactics.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What you are proposing is letting them win and hope things magically get better. This has also failed. Both the Saudi regime headed by salafist extremist is alive and well and so does Iran headed by the mollah. Lebanon is falling again into chaos with religious extremist aligned to Iran being the most well placed to take over. Doing nothing isn't anymore a solution. It's less costly in the short run and that's it.

Yes, attacking with no plans and openning new fronts in a war for dubious reasons and little to no support is idiotic and has caused a lot of problems. What I'm suggesting isn't retreating, it's changing battle plans, cut your losses where need be, but keep the pressure and change tactics. The solution to losing battles isn't surrender, it's changing tactics.

What you're proposing is a forever war. Again, other countries are not our responsibility. Let people run their countries as they see fit. We prop up the Saudi regime in the first place. Much of the funding and weapons we've sent to the Middle East ends up in the hands of jihadists.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

So far, you guys [Americans only] haven't been able to defeat them. Your presence, on the other hand, led them having a field day with propaganda and achieving new recruits. Look at how much they have grown already. The fear of them getting stronger due to pulling out is unreasonable as they are getting stronger under America's nose, and using them as a catalyst.

This is not a battle that can be won militarily, kill one of them and ten will come as ready made replacement. You can only defeat them by defeating their ideology, which is also nigh-impossible.

 

[epronovost]

Again, other countries are not our responsibility.

Again, this is not about saving or helping them. it's about preventing them for killing us because that's their plan. Killing us, overthrowing our government and rulling over the world. Yes, islamists have world domination design.

Let people run their countries as they see fit.

And what do you do when they attack you. Surrender because beating them is too difficult? You seem to have completely forgotten what's the aim of the islamist and only perceive what's the US and other western powers aim.

 

[epronovost]

So far, you guys [Americans only] haven't been able to defeat them. Your presence, on the other hand, led them having a field day with propaganda and achieving new recruits. Look at how much they have grown already. The fear of them getting stronger due to pulling out is unreasonable as they are getting stronger under America's nose, and using them as a catalyst.

This is not a battle that can be won militarily, kill one of them and ten will come as ready made replacement. You can only defeat them by defeating their ideology, which is also nigh-impossible.

Actually the striking capacity of ISIS have been reduced to pretty much nothing in stark difference to its 2014-2015 campaign of terror attacks that stuck particularly hard in France. On the other side, Al Qaeda has been unable to mount any important attacks outside of the Middle East for a decade and has lost all of its core leaders. It seems to me that while military operations were unable to completel neutralise those threats, they have prevented any other large scale attacks on civilian population in Europe and North America which was the point of those intervention in the first place.