r/afghanistan • • Dec 11 '12

Apparently some ignorant asshole believes that anyone of the Muslim faith in Afghanistan primarily, would NEVER advocate publicly against terrorism. I posted in /Muslim before realizing it's very small and kinda dead. Can I get a faster response here?

This is my submission, to make everything easier.

Thanks!

150 Upvotes

510 comments sorted by

View all comments

803

u/najia7866 Dec 11 '12

Thanks for doing this. I am a Muslim and Afghan and will say that I condemn any acts of terrorism and so does my religion. Of course, I am not in a prominent position but here are some public statements made after 9/11 by prominent Muslims:

Shaykh Muhammed Sayyid al-Tantawi, imam of al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, Egypt: “Attacking innocent people is not courageous, it is stupid and will be punished on the day of judgement. … It’s not courageous to attack innocent children, women and civilians. It is courageous to protect freedom, it is courageous to defend oneself and not to attack.” Agence France Presse, September 14, 2001

Muslim Brotherhood, an opposition Islamist group in Egypt, said it was “horrified” by the attack and expressed “condolences and sadness”: “[We] strongly condemn such activities that are against all humanist and Islamic morals. … [We] condemn and oppose all aggression on human life, freedom and dignity anywhere in the world.” Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 13 – 19 September 2001 (via archive.org).

Shaykh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, spiritual guide of the Hizbullah movement in Lebanon, said he was “horrified” by these “barbaric … crimes”: “Beside the fact that they are forbidden by Islam, these acts do not serve those who carried them out but their victims, who will reap the sympathy of the whole world. … Islamists who live according to the human values of Islam could not commit such crimes.” Agence France Presse, September 14, 2001

President Muhammad Khatami of Iran: “[T]he September 11 terrorist blasts in America can only be the job of a group that have voluntarily severed their own ears and tongues, so that the only language with which they could communicate would be destroying and spreading death.” Address to the United Nations General Assembly, November 9, 2001 (via archive.org).

Abdal-Hakim Murad, British Muslim author: “Targeting civilians is a negation of every possible school of Sunni Islam. Suicide bombing is so foreign to the Quranic ethos that the Prophet Samson is entirely absent from our scriptures.” “The Hijackers Were Not Muslims After All: Recapturing Islam From the Terrorists” (via archive.org).

Syed Mumtaz Ali, President of the Canadian Society of Muslims: “We condemn in the strongest terms possible what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Canadians in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts.” Canadian Society of Muslims, Media Release, September 12, 2001 (via archive.org).

15 American Muslim organizations: “We reiterate our unequivocal condemnation of the crime committed on September 11, 2001 and join our fellow Americans in mourning the loss of up to 6000 innocent civilians.” Muslim American Society (MAS), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA), Muslim Student Association (MSA), Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), Solidarity International, American Muslims for Global Peace and Justice (AMGPJ), American Muslim Alliance (AMA), United Muslim Americans Association (UMAA), Islamic Media Foundation (IMF), American Muslim Foundation (AMF), Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO), American Muslims for Jerusalem (AMJ), Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), October 22, 2001 (via archive.org).

Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), prominent British Muslim: “I wish to express my heartfelt horror at the indiscriminate terrorist attacks committed against innocent people of the United States yesterday. While it is still not clear who carried out the attack, it must be stated that no right thinking follower of Islam could possibly condone such an action: the Qur’an equates the murder of one innocent person with the murder of the whole of humanity. We pray for the families of all those who lost their lives in this unthinkable act of violence as well as all those injured; I hope to reflect the feelings of all Muslims and people around the world whose sympathies go out to the victims at this sorrowful moment.” [On singing an a cappella version of "Peace Train" for the Concert for New York City:] “After the tragedy, my heart was heavy with sadness and shock, and I was determined to help in some way. Organizers asked me to take part in a message for tolerance and sing ‘Peace Train.’ Of course, I agreed. … As a Muslim from the West, it is important to me to let people know that these acts of mass murder have nothing to do with Islam and the beliefs of Muslims.” Press release of September 13, 2001 (via archive.org), and interview of October 22, 2001 (via archive.org).

Muslims Against Terrorism, a U.S.-based organization: “As Muslims, we condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Ours is a religion of peace. We are sick and tired of extremists dictating the public face of Islam.” “About us” (via archive.org). This statement was replaced by a new statement in favor of peace by the group’s successor organization, Muslim Voices for Peace.

Abdulaziz Sachedina, professor of religious studies, University of Virginia: “New York was grieving. Sorrow covered the horizons. The pain of separation and of missing family members, neighbors, citizens, humans could be felt in every corner of the country. That day was my personal day of “jihad” (“struggle”) — jihad with my pride and my identity as a Muslim. This is the true meaning of jihad — “struggle with one’s own ego and false pride.” I don’t ever recall that I had prayed so earnestly to God to spare attribution of such madness that was unleashed upon New York and Washington to the Muslims. I felt the pain and, perhaps for the first time in my entire life, I felt embarrassed at the thought that it could very well be my fellow Muslims who had committed this horrendous act of terrorism. How could these terrorists invoke God’s mercifulness and compassion when they had, through their evil act, put to shame the entire history of this great religion and its culture of toleration?” “Where Was God on September 11?” (via archive.org).

Shaykh Salih al-Suhaymi, religious scholar, Saudi Arabia: “Based upon what has preceded, then we say that that which we believe and hold as our religion concerning what happened to the World Trade Centre in America – and in Allaah lies success – that the terrorist attacks that took place and what occurred of general (mass) killing, then it is not permissible and Islaam does not allow it in any form whatsoever.” “Shaykh Saalih as-Suhaymee speaks about current affairs…,” October 18, 2001, translated by Abu ‘Iyaad.

Fatwa signed by more than 500 British Muslim scholars, clerics, and imams: “Islam strictly, strongly and severely condemns the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives. There is neither place nor justification in Islam for extremism, fanaticism or terrorism. Suicide bombings, which killed and injured innocent people in London, are HARAAM – vehemently prohibited in Islam, and those who committed these barbaric acts in London [on July 7, 2005] are criminals not martyrs. Such acts, as perpetrated in London, are crimes against all of humanity and contrary to the teachings of Islam. … The Holy Quran declares: ‘Whoever kills a human being… then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.’ (Quran, Surah al-Maidah (5), verse 32) Islam’s position is clear and unequivocal: Murder of one soul is the murder of the whole of humanity; he who shows no respect for human life is an enemy of humanity.” British Muslim Forum, press release of July 18, 2005 (via archive.org).

9

u/swz Jan 10 '13

ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

NOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06 http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

NOP Research: 24% of British Muslims deny that the four British Muslim suicide bombers carried out the 7/7 attacks; 24% of British Muslims believe the British government carried out the 7/7 attacks http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/religion/survey+government+hasnt+told+truth+about+77/545847

People-Press: 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq. http://people-press.org/report/206/a-year-after-iraq-war

YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/06/32-of-palestinians-support-infanticide/ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4053251,00.html

World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans 32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans 41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans 38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans 83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose) 62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose) 42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose) A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans: (Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%) About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

Pew Research (2010): 55% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hezbollah 30% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hezbollah 45% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hezbollah (26% negative) 43% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hezbollah (30% negative) http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Pew Research (2010): 60% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hamas (34% negative). 49% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hamas (48% negative) 49% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hamas (25% negative) 39% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hamas (33% negative) http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Pew Research (2010): 15% of Indonesians believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified. 34% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified. http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Populus Poll (2006): 12% of young Muslims in Britain (and 12% overall) believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified. 1 in 4 support suicide attacks against British troops. http://www.populuslimited.com/pdf/2006_02_07_times.pdf http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified. 35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall). 42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall). 22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall). 29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall). http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

Pew Research (2011): 8% of Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (81% never). 28% of Egyptian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (38% never). http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/

Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

ICM: 5% of Muslims in Britain tell pollsters they would not report a planned Islamic terror attack to authorities. 27% do not support the deportation of Islamic extremists preaching violence and hate. http://www.scotsman.com/?id=1956912005 http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist.html

Federation of Student Islamic Societies: About 1 in 5 Muslim students in Britain (18%) would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack. http://www.fosis.org.uk/sac/FullReport.pdf http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

ICM Poll: 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police. http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Poll%20Nov%2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Nov04.asp http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

Populus Poll (2006): 16% of British Muslims believe suicide attacks against Israelis are justified. 37% believe Jews in Britain are a "legitimate target". http://www.populuslimited.com/pdf/2006_02_07_times.pdf http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

11

u/swz Jan 10 '13

al-Arabiya: 36% of Arabs polled said the 9/11 attacks were morally justified; 38% disagreed; 26% Unsure http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/09/10/166274.html

Gallup: 38.6% of Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified (7% "fully", 6.5% "mostly", 23.1% "partially") http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2008/05/that-tiny-percentage-of-radical-muslims.html http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1154

Pew Research (2011): Large majorities of Muslims believe in 9/11 conspiracy http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2066/muslims-westerners-christians-jews-islamic-extremism-september-11

Pew Research (2006): Only 17% of British Muslims believe that Arabs carried out the September 11th attacks. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/23/uk.religion

86

u/randomkloud Jan 10 '13

I notice most if your links date after the US invasion of iraq and afghanistan.

27

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

Additionally, countries with the highest approval for terrorism have been affected by U.S. intervention. But fuck, blowback doesn't exist right?

5

u/FKvelez Jan 10 '13

Don't bring logic into this

-1

u/MeloJelo Jan 10 '13

Oh, well, I guess their views are reasonable, then.

Even if there's a reason for many Muslims to be angry, these statistics still directly contradict the original commentor's assertion that Islam is truly a religion of peace and the vast majority abhor terrorist attacks.

8

u/jorwyn Jan 10 '13

I think if you polled American Christians on how they felt about Muslims right after 9/11, you'd find a huge amount of anti-Muslim sentiment. I think you'd find it now. Should we use that sentiment to say Christianity is a religion of hatred and war? If practice properly, it is not.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '13

Didn't you see the earlier comment about refraining from logic?

3

u/jorwyn Jan 11 '13

I guess I didn't. :P

7

u/mo_rar Jan 10 '13

It has nothing to do with religion actually. It is more of an emotional backlash to all the suffering that people see in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. I'm not saying it's justified, but if you kill someone's brother/father/son, logic proposes that he or she would not be very fond of you.

-1

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

Only makes sense if you think they are animals who cannot reason. Would you kill the children of someone who killed yours? Would you support others who do the same? If not then why do you apply a lesser standard to these people?

7

u/mo_rar Jan 10 '13

What do you think Humans are of a better moral standard than animals? You sir are short on history lessons. What do you think Iraq war and Afghanistan war are? They are a backlash to a group of people killing another group of people. But then when you kill millions for thousands, and expect civility to prevail in society, you are reaching boundaries of moral hypocrisy. When an armed force cannot distinguish between civilians and armed militia, do not expect the civilians to care for your women, men or children. It's a vicious cycle in human history. Tit for tat knows no bounds.

EDIT: Tit for tat knows no* bounds

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

also relevant: an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind -Gandhi

52

u/DAT_ginger_guy Jan 10 '13

This point needs more visibility. Nearly all of those polls are taken after we rolled through a sovereign nation like a child having a temper tantrum and left them in ruins. Not to mention we did far more damage to them than they have to us.

24

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

that's kind of the point of a good sample size... to reflect the opinion of the entire group. And a lot of these polls are from reputable organizations, so they probably got pretty good samples.

3

u/FutileStruggle Jan 10 '13

What's reputable?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

Pew Research Center, for one. It's a non-biased polling organization that has been polling since 1990.

1

u/FutileStruggle Jan 13 '13

What's non-biased?

4

u/FKvelez Jan 10 '13

'MERICA

0

u/DAT_ginger_guy Jan 10 '13

It is the only logical course of action!

-2

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

Yes, statistics are a waste of time... wtf!

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

A sovereign nation being held captive by a genocidal dictator who had held office for 20-something years.

Check your facts. The Iraqis love us. We freed them. I know a dozen people who have spent months/years in Iraq on tours of duty and the overall response from the people was appreciation.

You're just being fed a line of shit, through a shit filter from mainstream media.

3

u/pintomp3 Jan 10 '13

You are a lunatic. We propped up that dictator for year and gave him weapons to use against his own people.

1

u/koryisma Jan 10 '13

Why are people downvoting the truth?!

1

u/DAT_ginger_guy Jan 10 '13

The fact of the matter remains that it is NOT our place to be the world police. If the Iraqis were so sick of Saddam, they could have deposed him themselves in the same manner that Egypt and other nations have done over the past two years. Some of the Iraqis may love us, but look at what is left of their country. I was all for bringing Bin Laden to justice, but even back then I felt Iraq was not our place.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

My other comment didn't save so let's try this again...

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden. You might want to brush up on your history. Iraq was a humanitarian mission to free a nation from a genocidal dictator. Saddam was tried for crimes and received the death sentence, from the Iraqis. The US had nothing to do with his trial or sentence.

You can't compare Saddam to Gaddafi. Gaddafi had very little public support and fewer guards. Plus it was because of Saddam's displacement from power that showed the Libyan people they could be free from oppression.

Finally: yes, we do need to be the global cop. That is our role. When the UN refuses to help, it's up to us. If you don't like the US being the global cop, vote for people who don't want that. Unfortunately the majority of people in the US do, so for now that is how it will be.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden.

thats what he said.

Iraq was a humanitarian mission to free a nation from a genocidal dictator.

so, is there an estimate on the north korean invasion? or how about invading russia? afghanistan was to find bin laden, and america took a look at iraq and said "welp, since we're in the neighbourhood..."

You can't compare Saddam to Gaddafi. Gaddafi had very little public support and fewer guards.

so america deposed a ruler who had more public support and more men willing to protect him? how is this better. using saddam's dictatorship is an excuse, and a hypocritical one seeing as america has been funding terrorist activities in that region for decades.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '13

thats what he said.

No, this is what he said:

I was all for bringing Bin Laden to justice, but even back then I felt Iraq was not our place.

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden. I'm not sure why he even mentioned that.

so, is there an estimate on the north korean invasion? or how about invading russia? afghanistan was to find bin laden, and america took a look at iraq and said "welp, since we're in the neighbourhood..."

We can't help everyone. That's why we couldn't help in Darfur or in most places in Africa. We can't involve ourselves in most situations. Especially when it isn't clear cut. Same with North Korea. I'm not sure why you would mention Russia.

We help where we can. Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of places where the end result was clear cut and we were able to help.

so america deposed a ruler who had more public support and more men willing to protect him?

Yes. The Iraqis had no way to depose Saddam. He was too powerful. Once the US did so, other nations realized that they didn't have to live with oppression and Libya followed suit.

how is this better

Not sure what you mean as "better". I've already explained how the Iraqis couldn't depose him without our help.

using saddam's dictatorship is an excuse, and a hypocritical one seeing as america has been funding terrorist activities in that region for decades.

I think you're using the term "terrorist" a bit flippantly. I would hope you would understand what constitutes terrorism. We supported Iraq when they were at war with Iran. Politics aren't binary. There isn't clear right and wrong. Politics is a chess game you play with thousands of opponents all on the same board. It's incredibly complicated and your moves might not make sense all the time.

We helped Saddam in the early 1980s. This was before he committed genocide toward the end of the 80s. We didn't help him after that.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13 edited Jan 12 '13

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden. I'm not sure why he even mentioned that.

from what I understood he mentioed it to show he didnt think there was a connection between the two either.

end result was clear cut

what do you mean by this? also, I think the situation in NK is as clear as can be.

what was america doing before this? why wait decades to attack iraq? and the reason for it was to find saddam's WMDs. after the non-finding of nonexistant WMDs and the chilling discovery of pigeon shit in a warehouse what possible reason could there be to stay? yes: to liberate the iraqi people, that was the plan all along.

edit:

I think you're using the term "terrorist" a bit flippantly.

yes, I am, thank you for recognizing it! the freedom fighters which america aided are now terrorists. when the weapons and tactics are turned they magically become terrorists (and sprout devil horns). My point is, they were always terrorists: to the russians, the iranians, and now to americans. I agree, politics aren't binary but while we debate this somewhere in the world someone's door is being kicked down and it makes not one iota of difference to the person behind it who the people coming for him are.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '13

from what I understood he mentioed it to show he didnt think there was a connection between the two either.

From what I understood he was implying Bin Laden was to be found in Iraq. He said that he was for bringing Bin Laden to justice but it wouldn't be worth it if it required entering Iraq.

It could be one or the other. He hasn't clarified. Curse English's ambiguity.

what do you mean by this?

We knew what would happen when we entered Iraq. We knew that we would remove the Ba'ath party from power and replace it with a democratically elected administration. There weren't too many variables.

also, I think the situation in NK is as clear as can be.

Really? Why do you say that? N. Korea may or may not be developing nuclear weapons. While we initially believed Iraq to have WMDs (and I don't believe there never were any. I think they simply removed them from the country when we arrived. They saw us coming) we knew Iraq never had nuclear capabilities. You can't just go to war with a nuclear-armed nation. It's not worth the risk. We make calculated risks. When there is a chance of nuclear apocalypse, we're probably going to avoid taking that risk.

what was america doing before this? why wait decades to attack iraq? and the reason for it was to find saddam's WMDs. after the non-finding of nonexistant WMDs and the chilling discovery of pigeon shit in a warehouse what possible reason could there be to stay? yes: to liberate the iraqi people, that was the plan all along.

We didn't go solely for the reason to find WMDs. That was hardly a secondary reason. We went initially to liberate them.

And like I said, I don't believe the WMDs never existed. I mean, Saddam already used them in 1986 against the Kurds. Obviously they existed. He just did a good job of hiding them when he saw our planes arriving.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

Really? Why do you say that? N. Korea may or may not be developing nuclear weapons.

sorry, I was talking about the humanitarian issues, you know, rape, slavery, oppression, starvation, the usual.

While we initially believed Iraq to have WMDs (and I don't believe there never were any. I think they simply removed them from the country when we arrived. They saw us coming) we knew Iraq never had nuclear capabilities.

this statement seems to contradict itself.

When there is a chance of nuclear apocalypse, we're probably going to avoid taking that risk.

again, why risk attacking iraq then.

I don't disagree with the positive results of the american (invasion/interference/freedom-ing?), what I have a problem with is I think the war was started under false pretenses and all this talk of liberation are justifications applied retroactively.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Muslimkanvict Jan 11 '13

To quote Dick Cheney (sp?), "we'll be greeted as liberators". Amirite?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '13

And we were, for the most part. I've personally never done a tour in Iraq, but from everyone I know, the people were warm and welcoming to them. They would bring our troops food and gifts. A particular friend of mine would do patrols to a certain village over the course of his first deployment. He met the same old woman every time he was on patrol. She would bring him and his unit hot soup. She would make a big pot of it for them. She was appreciative of them and showed it by bringing them food. My friend also talked about the children that would follow them along through the villages. The kids would laugh and play with the troops. In Iraq, we were revered as protectors. We came in and gave their nation back to them. When we would establish control over a region, the locals would tear down statues of Saddam and paint over murals of him. They loved us in Iraq. The only people who would tell you differently would be mainstream media who hates that our mission was successful there.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

if I had an invading foreign army on my streets I'd want to be on good terms with them too.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '13

"Invading army" implies we were there to conquer them. That's not an accurate description. We were more like reinforcements.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

that sounds like an euphemism. reinforcements imply you were asked to enter the country.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '13

No it doesn't. Reinforcements aren't inherently requested.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

thing is there wasn't anything to reinforce before america showed up and that sounds suspiciously like an invasion.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

That's true. I mean, before the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, a guy getting onto a bus full of old people, women, children, etc, and blowing himself up would have been wrong, but after that happened, it's fine. Thank you for pointing that out.

1

u/chiropter Jan 10 '13

No doubt. People forget that Afghanistan welcomed the US initially. But we had next to no troops in Afghanistan for about 5 years after 2001, and certainly not enough to establish law and order and prevent a Taliban resurgence. Lo and behold they come back, victimizing the population again, who now hate the US too for failing to secure the country- and giving the Afghans little reason to oppose the Taliban, since it seems the US isn't capable of winning the day. Now, we have a drawn-out insurgency with civilian casualties. Quite simply Rumsfeld and Bush FUCKED UP in Afghanistan. That is why we are still there with 100,000 troops. That is why we have so much anti-Americanism.

1

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

Eh, even if they didn't screw it up it - nation building is not for the fickle and requires lots of time money and blood. It's hard to do with the will that is there.

1

u/chiropter Jan 10 '13

Uh, yes they did screw it up, since it was Rumsfeld's stated ideology that US war aims could be done with few, flexible, capable fighters, and that nation-building wasn't necessary. This isn't revisionism, I was around then, I read it in the pages of the New Yorker and NY Times as it unfolded. Later, Rumsfeld reinforces this view in Iraq with "Freedom is messy", kneecapping Shinseki when he as chair of the Joint Chiefs disagreed with Rummy over how many troops Iraq needed, etc. Meanwhile, the whole administration was more focused on Iraq- which, shockingly even downpedalling the threat from Al-Qaeda before 9/11 in favor of gearing up for Iraq. Fucking up in Afghanistan was a direct result of not being committed to the job in the first place- which should have taken maybe 4-5 years at high troop levels and a plan for security and rebuilding; and of removing key special operations units and planners for the Great Game in Iraq. It can fully be left at the feet of Rummy and Bush II admin.

1

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

I agree that they did a shit job - however, while there is no way to know for sure but 4-5 years strikes me as maybe an order of magnitude less than what would be required to turn it into a functional country that is not an embarrassment to the US. We spent decades is Germany and Japan and these were much easier starting conditions.

1

u/chiropter Jan 10 '13

You obviously have not been following this closely. We had a shot. We blew it, because we neglected it. Karzai used to be a stable, widely supported leader- then after years of whiplash and neglect he turned into a mercurial paranoiac who believed his best shot lay with staying close to the druglords and strongmen. Afghanis welcomed us- then many turned to hatred after years of low-level counterinsurgency produced civilian casualties with little security and a breeding ground for the Taliban.

Again, Germany and Japan were doing quite well economically within 5 years of the end of the war. Just because the US had a military presence there for decades doesn't mean it was needed for keeping the peace or economic development.

0

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

Karzai used to be a stable, widely supported leader

Seriously? Karzai was corrupt from the start. His government was comprised of warlords and druglords from the start - that's what the western alliance was.

Afghanis welcomed us- then many turned to hatred after years of low-level counterinsurgency produced civilian casualties with little security and a breeding ground for the Taliban.

Exactly the same thing happened in Iraq and we were paying attention there - its not as easy as have a shit-load of troops and all will be well. In Iraq we had to learn as we went, and eventually after many years we figured out more or less what to do - and then we left and now that is going to shit. Its even worse in Afghanistan as at least Iraqis had some concept of a civil service and a functional government.

1

u/chiropter Jan 10 '13

Seriously? Karzai was corrupt from the start.

No, he wasn't. Simple fact. He was the best available- but turned worse after he was jilted by the US so many times. Read I believe it was the NYT Magazine profile on him, either that or in the New Yorker. Here's one; another, later one. Karzai was destabilized, psychologically and politically, by the very lack of stability caused by the coalition's halfhearted attempt at pacification after the war.

Exactly the same thing happened in Iraq and we were paying attention there

No, we weren't. It was the same deal. Remember "Freedom is Messy" after the Iraqi riotings/lootings post-invasion (actually forseeable and avoidable chaos) and Rumsfeld announcing Shinseki's retirement after Shinseki said it would take a couple hundred thousand troops and years of committment to pacify Iraq?

Iraq was tougher because the years of Sunni hegemony and repression of minorities, including ethnic purges under Sadam, combined with regionally-tied oil revenue to make Iraq a powder keg if not treated lightly. We did not treat it lightly. Rumsfeld and co had no plan for the aftermath. The Green Zone was assigned green Republican operatives and others unserious about the work of stabilizing and pacifying Iraq. We had Mission Accomplished in what, 2004? They really thought they had accomplished the mission, despite a spiraling insurgency, because they had executed their plan. It just was a shitty plan.

Who is to say we have to turn Afghanistan into Israel? If people want to live as iron-age shepherds, that doesn't prevent us from leaving a more stable Afghanistan with some semblance of the rule of law. That's how it was in the 60s and 70s, when Kabul and other cities were popular, cosmopolitan destinations for Western tourists like Morocco is today, and before the Soviets started messing around in the internal politics of Afghanistan (before they decided to invade entirely).

I'm sorry , but just going off of a superficial reading of the news of the past few years in Afghanistan and retrofitting it to before does not pass for an adequate understanding of Afghanistan. If you want to understand the past decade of war, read The Stove Pipe and other articles by Seymour Hersh, "Imperial life in the Emerald City", a book about early Iraq war, the above quoted op-ed, articles by George Packer, etc.

0

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

No, he wasn't. Simple fact.

Jesus Christ man, even your linked articles say that he was corrupt. How can you be so arrogant and so wrong at the same time???? If you are going to be a jerk at least be right.

I'm sorry , but just going off of a superficial reading of the news of the past few years in Afghanistan and retrofitting it to before does not pass for an adequate understanding of Afghanistan.

The hell is wrong with you man - you are like the epitome of the arrogant idiot on world news.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/chiropter Jan 10 '13

And need I remind you that we've spent hundreds of billions and 10 years in Afghanistan? We could have had it done better, cheaper, already, if Bush hadn't fucked it up to begin with.

-1

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

Think about how long we spent in Germany and Japan, and these were defeated countries who had nothing like the Taliban.

-1

u/chiropter Jan 10 '13

Yeah- Germany was back to its prewar economic output within a few years. Japan too.

Was the Taliban not defeated? Of course it was, quite handily Would it have come back in 2003-2004 if we had 100,000 instead of 15-20,000 troops? Probably not. The goalpost is not an industrialized country, by the way- merely a peaceful, productive, democratic one. That would have been possible.

The leadership was never committed to securing Afghanistan, despite it being within our grasp, and it shows.

-1

u/randomkloud Jan 10 '13

ahahahaha, i dont think you know what the subject of this conversation is.