US Forces In Full Scale Retreat From Afghanistan; 20 years of War Ending In Total Military Defeat?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Indeed. Biden rightly defends America’s exit from Afghanistan, “the right decision, the wise decision, the best decision for America”. And again, btw, it is easy to criticize, but it would be difficult to do it any other way. It’s done, warmongers need to deal with it.

On the contrary, Biden’s withdrawal is already causing a resurgence of terror groups under the Taliban that will have the ability to strike the US homeland within 1-2 years. Biden rejected sound advice on other ways to do the withdrawal at key points. Nothing is done. Nothing is over. It’s getting worse. Biden apologists need to deal with that fact.

[Ludicus]

Biden rejected sound advice on other ways to do the withdrawal

"other ways"?
Ask the Clash,"Should I stay or should I go?...this indecision's bugging me". Lord, a withdrawal is a withdrawal, period.

[Lord Thesaurian]

"other ways"?
Ask the Clash,"Should I stay or should I go?...this indecision's bugging me". Lord, a withdrawal is a withdrawal, period.

We know for a fact that’s not true, because Biden explicitly rejected advice from his own Administration in order to conduct it the way he did.

[Cyclops]

"other ways"?

The President made wrong statements about how the withdrawal would go, its seems he was either too stupid or to dishonest to get it right.

I mean there wasn't a general massacre of the US forces (so better than the East India Company incursion in 1840) or their supporters (yet), maybe Biden felt he had a deal with the Taliban and the abandoned puppet regime? The problem is in Afghanistan, there is no deal everyone will agree to, even in the one faction. In fact making a deal with one group almost guarantees it will be opposed by others. We've seen how individual Taliban commanders have conducted repressive killings and beatings despite the mouthpieces proclaiming a new friendly Taliban, and how Cheney's phoney puppet state collapsed faster than even the US expected.

The pearl clutching nonsense about "immediate attacks" (as if Afghanistan is a huge terror factory full of experts and doomsday weapons) is just hot air: there is already a constant threat of terror attacks on the US, and Cheney\'s Oil wars made it far worse. The money, manpower and brains of the 9/11 attacks came from Saudi Arabia and its still there, chopping up people in embassies. Afghanistan and Pakistan were convenient boltholes for the project. The US generated many more boltholes for terror (eg in Iraq ) since then, indeed Cheney's invasion has been a twenty year bonanza for Salafist recruiters and contriibuted to the fall of many Baathist regimes in favour of Salafist Hellscapes.

Cheney couldn't have done more for terror if he tried, his ripples of death have rampaged across the Islamic world and intensified attacks on the West. Only by smashing personal freedom through the Patriot Act and conducting their own terror campaign with drone murders, secret prisons and torture has the US defended itself until now.

[Coughdrop addict]

Indeed. Biden rightly defends America’s exit from Afghanistan, “the right decision, the wise decision, the best decision for America”. And again, btw, it is easy to criticize, but it would be difficult to do it any other way. It’s done, warmongers need to deal with it.

These people really do think war is a game.

They spend all their time playing CoD or watching military operation documentaries and go-pro videos of the Iraq War and develop delusions of grandeur. They maybe go out into the woods to LARP as soldiers with their buddies every few weeks or so, all reinforcing each other's delusions and pumping up their egos, and start to think they’re these hardcore professional soldiers that know more about military ops than anyone who is actually in the military and if only they'd been there they would easily win the war.

You see the same mentality in Don’t Tread On Me culture. They think they're these super badass insurgents ready to fight against tyranny (IE whenever they don't get their way) and could single-handedly wage a guerrilla war against the entire military if they needed to. In reality they would melt into a quivering puddle of tears at the very first setback and would be dead or begging to surrender in a few days at most.

The entire thing is a game to them, and it won’t stop being a game until reality rudely hits them in the face, as seen with the way they scurried after Babbit was shot.

[swabian]

These people really do think war is a game.

They spend all their time playing CoD or watching military operation documentaries and go-pro videos of the Iraq War and develop delusions of grandeur. They maybe go out into the woods to LARP as soldiers with their buddies every few weeks or so, all reinforcing each other's delusions and pumping up their egos, and start to think they’re these hardcore professional soldiers that know more about military ops than anyone who is actually in the military and if only they'd been there they would easily win the war.

You see the same mentality in Don’t Tread On Me culture. They think they're these super badass insurgents ready to fight against tyranny (IE whenever they don't get their way) and could single-handedly wage a guerrilla war against the entire military if they needed to. In reality they would melt into a quivering puddle of tears at the very first setback and would be dead or begging to surrender in a few days at most.

The entire thing is a game to them, and it won’t stop being a game until reality rudely hits them in the face, as seen with the way they scurried after Babbit was shot.

Men (the young ones) need to have their playgrounds. There is nothing essentially bad about it. Why are you so distrustful? Those "war games" do not prepare anyone for actual military service and they do not render men to be monsters. If at all, it's more like men who have a destructive personality engage in war-related entertainment as well. That doesn't mean the whole thing is condemnable.

[Coughdrop addict]

Men (the young ones) need to have their playgrounds. There is nothing essentially bad about it. Why are you so distrustful? Those "war games" do not prepare anyone for actual military service and they do not render men to be monsters. If at all, it's more like men who have a destructive personality engage in war-related entertainment as well. That doesn't mean the whole thing is condemnable.

Playing games is fine. It's when you start to confuse your games with reality, not getting your way with oppression, your candidate losing with a coup, people not like yourself being treated as your equals with persecution, that you have lost the plot.

Or when one side of the aisle wants to go back to Afghanistan because no amount of lives lost or money wasted can ever equal the blow to their egos admitting the war was unwinnable has caused them.

[swabian]

Playing games is fine. It's when you start to confuse your games with reality, not getting your way with oppression, your candidate losing with a coup, people not like yourself being treated as your equals with persecution, that you have lost the plot.

Or when one side of the aisle wants to go back to Afghanistan because no amount of lives lost or money wasted can ever equal the blow to their egos admitting the war was unwinnable has caused them.

It is a humiliation for the mighty USA, must be. I just wish all of this could be processed in constructive way.

No I'm really just kidding. Send those worthless bloodhounds back and kill the Taliban. They need to be exterminated in man to man combat. This is how the USA can repay her guilt. Die for us, bloodhounds, die for Afghanistan, like you should.

[Heathen Hammer]

Let's not conflate two very different things here.
Decision to leave Afghanistan that was made by Trump administration was correct. It was a war started on painfully false premises, unnecessary and, let's be honest here, an unwinnable war.
The failure that it resulted with has more to do with Biden administration and its decision to break the ceasefire between ANA and Taliban for some schizophrenic partisan reasons. They wanted to spite le bad Orange Man and got humiliated in front of the world instead. Beautiful and poetic this would be, if Democratic partisanship didn't cost many lives on both sides.

[Ludicus]

In fact making a deal with one group almost guarantees it will be opposed by others.

It’s hard to satisfy Greeks and Trojans. On November 10,1975 the Portuguese took home their flag, leaving Angola to the Angolan people, who were fighting a civil war.Some national fascists think we should still be there, especially considering that, military speaking, we had won the war...unlike the United States, by the way. There is only one relevant group in Afghanistan, and that is the Taliban.The NA was seen as a possible challenger to Taliban rule in the country, but last week the Taliban took control of Panjshir. The Taliban now face a brutal enemy -the Daesh-K. Abdul Sayed, an expert on Afghanistan and the Taliban, wrote on Twitter,

My latest for @washingtonpost on the ISKP future challenge in Afghanistan for the Taliban and its threats beyond the country for the US and West. Also, analyzing the myth of ISKP “covert relations” with the Afghan Taliban so-called Haqqani network.

Here, ISIS-K is ready to fight the Taliban. Here's how the group become a major threat in Afghnistan.Washington Post
-----
The only winner in the Afghan war is the military industrial complex. Afghanistan War Has Been Hugely Profitable - The Intercept

$10,000 INVESTED IN DEFENSE STOCKS WHEN AFGHANISTAN WAR BEGAN NOW WORTH ALMOST $100,000
Was the Afghanistan War a failure? Not for the top five defense contractors and their shareholders.
defense stocks outperformed the stock market overall by 58 percent during the Afghanistan War.

We already know that the international military complexes and their variations profits from endless wars, a deadly serious business. The end of the Afghan war is a huge disappointment. Now, it seems that the merchants of death do not get along with each other, France says Biden acted like Trump to sink Australia Australia defence deal

Word of its cancellation dominated Europe's largest arms fair in London where one delegate called it "jaw-dropping"

It's all connected, in a way or another.

[Cyclops]

... There is only one relevant group in Afghanistan, and that is the Taliban...

I suspect the Taliban is fairly feudal, and any deal made with the new "government" will have only patchy applicability across the rest of Afghanistan.

I hope I'm wrong, and that at least the US led intervention has taught them responsibility and some manners. I think that's probably a pipe dream, if ISIS is there that's just the same pattern repeating: Saudi and other Salafist funded terror. If the Taliban even thinks about giving women rights that Saudi thugs will be all over them like a rash.

[Mithradates]

The Taliban are asking for more help from the international community

Taliban spokesman Matiullah Rouhani told the German news agency DPA that the aid could take the form of investment, reconstruction "or any kind of humanitarian aid for the government or the people of Afghanistan", calling on the Germany ". The Taliban will consider the aid "very welcome," he said.
...
The Taliban have brought peace to Afghanistan, he said, adding "we are not terrorists."

They are already begging for money.
Well, if they want an easy $10 million, they could just extradite the terrorist Sirajuddin Haqqani.
It should be easy to find him since he is their Minister of Interior.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I suspect the Taliban is fairly feudal, and any deal made with the new "government" will have only patchy applicability across the rest of Afghanistan.

I hope I'm wrong, and that at least the US led intervention has taught them responsibility and some manners. I think that's probably a pipe dream, if ISIS is there that's just the same pattern repeating: Saudi and other Salafist funded terror. If the Taliban even thinks about giving women rights that Saudi thugs will be all over them like a rash.

As if ISIS is what’s preventing the poor Taliban from liberalizing. Hot take.

Back on Earth, the lines between the ISIS, the Taliban, and the terror groups hosted by the latter, are much blurrier with varying degrees of overlap, especially when it comes to their common enemy, the US. Whoever comes out on top, or even if no one does, these groups all stand to gain from the Taliban’s defeat of NATO. The Pentagon recently reiterated the likelihood that these groups will regroup and have the capacity to hit the US homeland within 1-2 years.

It’s often said there’s a clear split between Islamic State-Khorasan and the Taliban, but the harsh reality of terrorism and politics in Afghanistan is the situation is never black and white. Sworn enemies can fight each other one day and collaborate for mutual gain the next day. These groups are intertwined and interconnected. Their tribal and marriage ties ensure ideological separations do not cause permanent fault lines.

There has, in fact, been a tactical and strategic convergence between the Islamic State-Khorasan and the Haqqanis, if not the entirety of the Taliban. The Taliban are comprised of several factions, each with their own leadership, structure, and control of Afghan territory.

The murky nature of Islamic State-Khorasan’s relationship with the Haqqani network as well as Pakistani terrorist groups presents a complex arrangement of tacit cooperation between several terrorist organizations. So do its intricate ties to the Pakistani military and intelligence community. That has dire implications for Afghan and global security, especially as Pakistan is so keen for the international community to recognize and legitimize the Taliban.

Islamic State-Khorasan and the Taliban may resume their squabbles, but they also have more in common with each other than they have differences. The perennial losers in this remain the Afghan people.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/08/26...islamic-state/

[Ludicus]

I hope I'm wrong, and that at least the US led intervention has taught them responsibility and some manners

Frankly,I don't think a country that lost the war is in a position to teach anyone anything.But for whatever reason, it seems that the Taliban have changed in the last 20 years, and that's good,from our western perspective.
After all, there is a lot of hypocrisy in all of this The war in Afghanistan was a huge victory — for the military military-industrial complex (excerpt)

The initial poster boy for military action, of course, was Osama bin Laden. But when he escaped into Pakistan — on horseback, the story goes — a mere two months after the U.S. started dropping bombs, the war was repurposed as a "feminist mission … to liberate Afghan women from their burqas," as Arundhati Roy put it in 2002.

...When the Taliban were beaten out of governance, the mission changed again — this time to one of grueling, corruption-prone, glacially incremental reconstruction.
The U.S. would build, Bush said at the time, "an Afghanistan that is free from this evil and is a better place to live." What this really meant, whether or not he knew it, was fresh billions — and steady billions — for the Pentagon, State Department, contractors, mercenaries and a host of Afghan warlords and politicians.
The war was ultimately a colossal financial operation with an unfathomable toll in taxpayer dollars and human lives. That it accomplished virtually nothing of political or civic durability only confirms this.

"I don't think I could overstate that this was a system just basically designed for funneling money and wasting or losing equipment," said a U.S. veteran with Joint Command, which oversaw training of Afghan forces, in a wrenching interview with Michael Tracey last month.
The veteran's frustrating (and not at all uncommon) experiences testify to Andrew Cockburn's assertion that "if we understand that the [military industrial complex] exists purely to sustain itself and grow, it becomes easier to make sense of the corruption, mismanagement, and war, and understand why, despite warnings over allegedly looming threats, we remain in reality so poorly defended."

To publish tactical analyses by people like Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, a former director of Raytheon, while ignoring the vast profits accumulated by that company from never-ending wars, symbolizes the ingrained failure of the mainstream press to scrutinize our political leaders in ways that matter. When Austin pressed President Biden to preserve a military presence in Afghanistan, for example, the New York Times reported it with no apparent irony.

Austin was just one of a sizable number of establishmentarian voices urging that the occupation be prolonged, in one form or another. Former Secretary Hillary Clinton warned of "huge consequences" if troops were to be withdrawn. Former Secretary Condoleezza Rice sagely recommended a sustained counterterrorism mission. Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, foresaw "some really dramatic, bad possible outcomes."

Jim Mattis, who took a short break as a director of General Dynamics to serve as Trump's defense secretary, warned that withdrawal from Afghanistan could leave the U.S. vulnerable to threats of terrorism. In the less than two years that Mattis served in Trump's cabinet, General Dynamics was awarded $277.66 million for work either fully or partly in Afghanistan.
In its editorial last week condemning the fall of Kabul, the New York Times solemnly referred to the 20-year occupation as "a story of mission creep and hubris but also of the enduring American faith in the values of freedom and democracy." The paper of record's editorial board dwelled on American soldiers lost, not Afghan civilians slaughtered. It reserved its rancor for the "militants" overrunning the region, not the foreign militaries that precipitated its bloody unraveling. It went so far as to lionize the U.S. military as a "logistical superpower" able to "move heaven and earth."

The chaotic scenes of Afghans swarming an American military plane at the Kabul airport, the Times observed, "seemed to capture the moment more vividly than words: a symbol of America's military might, flying out of the country even as Afghans hung on against all hope."

Other influential newspapers also missed the point. The Washington Post questioned Biden's foreign policy credentials — not because of his instrumental support for the catastrophic invasion of Iraq, but because of his "cold" and "harsh" decision to pull out of Afghanistan. The Post worried that Biden's "callousness … will make it hard to gain allies in the nation's next conflict" (my own, disbelieving italics). It quoted Rep. Michael Waltz, a Florida Republican and U.S. Army veteran, saying, "Who's going to trust us again?" — as if the U.S. foreign policy record thus far had been a model of trustworthiness. It even devoted front-page attention to Sen. Lindsey Graham's fears that a Taliban victory might pose new terrorist threats to the United States. That same day, the AP reported, Gen. Milley warned senators that the rise of the Taliban might indeed endanger the United States in unforeseen ways.
Neither the AP nor the Post noted that such new "threats" usually prompt new bonanzas for defense contractors and new catastrophes for the unlucky civilians who pay the ultimate price for campaigns launched in the names of "security" and "freedom."

The Wall Street Journal, the AP and others peppered their reportage with (doubtlessly factual) indictments of the Taliban's brutality and its history of violently subjugating women. But the antagonisms ended there. There was no mention of the fact that in 2019, U.S. and Afghan forces killed more civilians than the Taliban did. Or that U.S. and Afghan forces are under investigation by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, including rape and torture. Or that a staggering number of deaths and injuries have been inflicted by U.S. drone operations and airstrikes throughout the region. Or that the National Security Agency had been spying on virtually every Afghan with a cell phone. Or that the U.S. decision to re-destabilize the country critically exacerbated the refugee catastrophe (with roughly 6 million Afghans displaced so far). Also swept under the carpet were the Afghanistan Papers, leaked documents that revealed U.S. officials had blatantly lied and fudged reports about the progress of their trillion-dollar project for years.

When it comes to foreign policy, American lawmakers seem to be feminists and freedom fighters only when it's convenient. Otherwise, human rights and democracy serve as buzzwords and stratagems, too easily wielded by a military establishment that believes global problems require military solutions, which in return require half of Congress' discretionary spending.
When it comes to the media establishment's selective criticisms of tragedies like Afghanistan and the broader role of the U.S. military — not to mention its often inglorious and sometimes depraved history — it ends up doing the bidding, knowingly or otherwise, of the world's most moneyed military-industrial complex.

Forgive me, but that’s exactly what I think.
Biden did what needed to be done.Strange as it may appear, that is a victory.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Frankly,I don't think a country that lost the war is in a position to teach anyone anything.But for whatever reason, it seems that the Taliban have changed in the last 20 years, and that's good,from our western perspective.

There is no “pro-Taliban” perspective for you to appeal to, other than that of the Taliban itself. The Taliban have not “changed,” they’ve simply adapted to an era where any government body must also have official narratives as part of a global and online presence. If the Taliban doesn’t want to be “told what to do” by western powers, then perhaps they should stop demanding money from us. If they want to take their chances with China so they don’t have to agree to our terms, they certainly have that option. Appealing to conspiratorial insinuations about “muh military industrial complex” and the “real” motives for supporting the former Afghan democracy doesn’t exculpate the Taliban in any aspect, any more than does your shameless “9/11 cover-up” narrative. Biden cannot be both complicit in a massive, worldwide conspiracy to conceal KSA’s role in 9/11, and also a hero for “winning” by orchestrating a catastrophically botched end to the results of that conspiracy.

[Cyclops]

...a country that lost the war...

Look the US won the war comfortably with a handful of special forces and some bribed warlords. Their military preponderance was so great even Iran cooperated. The US lost the peace.

This happened to the British and the Soviets. Only the British suffered a catastrophic defeat during the botched retreat, the other two entered and left the country on their own terms: they were just unwilling to endure everyday life in that region.

The US and allies suffered most from their terrible leadership putting their people in that hellhole: the botched mission makes Iraq (where the US took a useful pawn in the Baathist state which kept its terrorists on a leash and replaced it with a weakened Iranian pawn barely able to restrain a tide Salafist recruits) look like a success. Biden, Trump (and at least those two committed to leaving) Obama and above all Bush/Cheney made this humiliation, but it wasn't a military one.

I mean Biden's withdrawal is something of a victory over the kleptocracy, but Haliburton etc got their contracts for two decades, so its more like a wake than a triumph.

[Ludicus]

There is no “pro-Taliban” perspective for you to appeal to

You are wrong, as usual. It's a straightforward perspective. U.S. and Taliban find a common ground for cooperation against Daesh-K. Biden wisely said: It’s "in the interest of the Taliban that in fact ISIS-K does not metastasize beyond what it is".He is right, read a previous post.

your shameless “9/11 cover-up” narrative

I will respond in the same way. What you say is the product of a shameless nationalistic and warmongering mentality.Typical of a mind that only proposes destruction and chaos,and refuses diplomatic solutions, unless they have the tip of a bayonet behind them,preferably with the American flag hanging from the tip,and singing the American anthem.
-----

insinuations about “ military industrial complex”

Tell that to Eisenhower. The reality of the power of the military industrial complex is as clear as another evidence that you shamelessly deny, the structural racism.
----
A few months before the Iraq invasion in 2003, at a time when the Bush’s doctrine - the “war on terror” - seemed to fade, it was necessary to make it the more than it really was. So, Bush’s administration turned to Iraq. At that time, Karl Rove told George Bush "If we make good use of this, we're going to be in power for a long time”.
By then,the ex-secretary of state Colin Powell warned Bush that it would not be possible to maintain two wars simultaneously, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush didn't listen to him and, even worse, military interventions later followed in Libya, Syria and Somalia.
----
At this moment, after the US withdrawal, there are two possible ways for the United States to envision its future relationship with Afghanistan: 1) It is conceivable that the US will finance in the near future 5 , 6 or 7 new "Lions of Panshir" to perpetuate an endless war, misery and anarchy.

2)What would be wise to do: talk com Russia, China, Iran, and the neighboring countries of Afghanistan-forcing Pakistan if necessary-using diplomacy, economic and financial power, because, one way or another, all these countries are interested in the stability of the region-and allow Afghanistan’s access to funds to prevent economic collapse. Paralyzed, the country will fall into anarchy, fueling more extremism again and again and again, to the great joy of the merchants of death,and to the great satisfaction of the warmongering Lord.

Third: Empires that cannot control their unlimited impulses for expansion eventually lose the sympathy of the people, because they become a danger to world peace. Paradoxically, it is no exaggeration to say that the greatest danger to liberal democracy in the world today is the United States of America.

The U.S has to accept that other empires have the right to defend their limits, and their areas of influence in nearby regions, that is, the peripheral limits of the current superpower:this is a sine qua non condition for world stability. No empire can (or it is unwise to do so) continue to expand its area of influence unlimited and aggressively. What I say here is also said by some American politicians, prominent figures of former US administrations, who regret what they did.

For example, Lawrence Wikerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff: “I was part of possibly the biggest strategic disaster the U.S. has perpetrated in this generation. It’s also one of my biggest regrets. All across the region, the chaos that we're looking at was produced by the United States invasion in 2003. I watched as the intelligence was cooked, as principals in the George W. Bush government were sold by that intelligence or helped to warp that intelligence, as was the case with Dick Cheney, and I watched the inevitable march to war”.

Big oil participated in the invasion of Iraq. At that time,Cheney and Bush tried prevent any public accounting of what went on during the energy task force’s meetings. According to a document acquired by the Washington Post in 2005, White House in 2001,two years before the invasion of Iraq and months before 9/11,invited oil executives to contribute planning toward the division of Iraq’s oil wealth. Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts as of 5 March 2001.

A great piece of work with this report Lie After Lie: What Colin Powell Knew About Iraq 15 Years Ago Intercept (2018)
--
You probably can deal with this, most likely U.S. Global War on Terror Has Taken Nearly 1 Million Lives

[Lord Thesaurian]

You are wrong, as usual. It's a straightforward perspective. U.S. and Taliban find a common ground for cooperation against Daesh-K. Biden wisely said: It’s "in the interest of the Taliban that in fact ISIS-K does not metastasize beyond what it is".He is right, read a previous post.

There’s nothing impartial about shilling for the Taliban. Your position has been repeatedly exposed as counter factual to the degree of lazy propaganda, to wit: the Taliban is not going to prioritize fighting terrorism when it has appointed terrorists to lead its government, regardless of any opposition to rival groups.

I will respond in the same way. What you say is the product of a shameless nationalistic and warmongering mentality.Typical of a mind that only proposes destruction and chaos,and refuses diplomatic solutions, unless they have the tip of a bayonet behind them,preferably with the American flag hanging from the tip,and singing the American anthem.

I’m glad you admit you continue to respond with empty deflections so you can avoid defending your false narrative.

Tell that to Eisenhower. The reality of the power of the military industrial complex is as clear as another evidence that you shamelessly deny, the structural racism.

Deflecting to Iraqi WMDs does not substantiate the lies you’re determined to reiterate over and over about the nature and purpose of the US mission in Afghanistan. Sophistic hyperbole about “American empire”
and its “threat to liberal democracy” rings hollow, given you’ve spent this entire thread telling everyone how great the Taliban is and how the democratically elected Afghan government was a puppet regime erected to prevent the Taliban’s rightful rule.

Your position invariably advocates for the interests of illiberal, expansionist and undemocratic “empires.” If this is all real politik for you, and you’re just a passive, neutral observer, the question remains why you choose to regurgitate narratives from governments that actively oppose these “liberal, democratic” values you claim to defend, all while yearning for the demise of the one superpower in history that has ever made those values an actual priority in its foreign policy. It goes without saying that had your views been adopted by US leadership from the turn of the 20th century, it’s unlikely most of Europe today would be liberal or democratic at all, let alone anywhere else in the world beyond Britain and her children.

The old news about Iraqi WMDs, Eisenhower and allegations of structural racism have nothing to do with your failed attempts to discredit the US, NATO, and the democratically elected government of Afghanistan that was supported as part of the non combat mission there. Conspiratorial innuendo and transparently false pro-Taliban talking points expose the dishonesty and fraud you’re attempting to project onto your rhetorical strawmen. That you would try to bring up racism, after citing a segregationist’s view of the fundamental incompatibility of non-Europeans with democracy to support your claims, is yet another example of your incoherent, rambling argumentation. Your position is not anti-war. It is not even handed. It’s not even factual. It’s cartoonishly, lazily anti-American, and worse, anti-democratic and pro-Taliban.

[Infidel144]

More from the Taliban:

Female Government Workers In Kabul Told To Stay Home In Latest Taliban Rule
The Taliban-appointed mayor of Kabul is telling most of the city government's female employees to stay home.

In a new ruling passed down by the Taliban, Kabul interim mayor Hamdullah Namony said that women working for the city's government are to stay home pending a further decision, according to The Associated Press.

The only exception to the new rule applies to women whose jobs cannot be replaced by men, including those working in the city's design and engineering departments and women's public toilet attendants, he said.
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/19/10386...e-taliban-rule

[Knight of Heaven]

Im shocked! Shocked! i say. Well not that shocked.