The politics Of Getting Canadians Out Of Afghanistan

113 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cueball Cueball's picture

No. This is a case of giving Fidel's theories more credit than they deserve.

Fidel

I should have asked is, who is supplying the Taliban with weapons and aid, like they did in the 1990s?

And are US taxpayers and CIA being careful to fund and arm just the Taliban and excluding the other 1,799 resistance groups in this ongoing covert aid program?

Cueball wrote:
"Mooj" is pejorative racist slang. You can stop your rubbernecking from the right in the cause of the "left" anytime. Thanks.

I think you meant red-necking. And are you talking about the same "holy warriors" and "death to communists" US proxies who threatened to rape and murder Malalai Joya in Afghan Parliament? Who are you calling names anyway?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Rubbernecking:

Quote:

Rubbernecking describes the act of gawking at something of interest. It is often used to refer to drivers trying to view the carnage resulting from a traffic accident. The term refers to the craning of a person's neck in order to get a better view.[1]

In anycase, yes, Mooj is presently used as a pejorative term, such as dink or slope or gook to describe Muslim militants. Primarily it appear in the slang of right wing warmongerers and other racist trash, such as yourself to denigrate Muslim militants regardless of their political stripe.

Fidel

Well you and the Mooj in Karzai's US-backed kleptocracy can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned, and as far RAWA and leftists around the world are concerned. RAWA describes Uncle Sam's anticommunist "holy warriors" as [url=http://www.rawa.org/museum.html]ignoramuses[/url] on equal footing with the Taliban. So it's either mooj or ignoramuses, take your pick.

Frmrsldr

Unionist wrote:

Frmrsldr, I don't think I made myself clear.

You did.

I understand you perfectly.

What I wrote does not contradict your contentions.

Unionist wrote:

It is impermissible for a progressive Canadian to promote such negotiations. Our one and only job is to show solidarity with the Afghan people by getting out. I understand perfectly well that when the U.S. negotiated in Paris with the Vietnamese, it was a fig leaf aiming at getting out. But their aim was a last-ditch effort to consolidate a puppet regime. The task of U.S. citizens at that time was to end the war by getting out - not to preach talks and treaties.

There is no way in hell that I will support any "intermediate" call for talks or treaties. Let the bastards get the hell out, and then they can negotiate all the fuck they want by Skype for all I care. The calls for "negotiations" are purely, and simply, calls for ensuring that Afghanistan ends up with a regime which is to our taste. Not like the nasty regimes that those poor wretches come up with on their own.

I do not promote such negotiations.

My last post was not prescriptive - saying what ought to be done, but descriptive - describing what I think will be done.

What the U.S./NATO/ISAF are trying to do is leave Afghanistan with a puppet regime. While they think or at least put on the front to the public that they are winning the war, they will attempt to achieve this goal through war and will not take the "negotiations" seriously.

When the U.S./NATO/ISAF realize that they cannot win the war and that they must leave Afghanistan, they will attempt to leave a puppet regime through negotiations.

Thus, when the U.S./NATO/ISAF take negotiations seriously, We (the People) can take this as a sign that the U.S./NATO/ISAF have realized that they've lost the war and are using negotiations as a facesaving exit strategy.

When have I ever said that antiwar, propeace, anti-interventionists should support Afghan peace negotiations?

I hope this clarifies my last post and that you are no longer cross with me.

 

Fidel

I think they're making sure the Taliban are well armed and funded now so that the other 1799 resistance groups will have to deal with the USA's former proxies in Afghanistan from 1992 to 2001?, once again.

Remember what happened to Massoud after he declared war on the Taliban against the wishes of the US ambassador to Afghanistan. Al-CIA'duh blew him to smithereens.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Fidel wrote:

Well you and the Mooj in Karzai's US-backed kleptocracy can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned, and as far RAWA and leftists around the world are concerned. RAWA describes Uncle Sam's anticommunist "holy warriors" as [url=http://www.rawa.org/museum.html]ignoramuses[/url] on equal footing with the Taliban. So it's either mooj or ignoramuses, take your pick.

Mooj = Dink or Slope, or Gook.

Fidel

Cueball wrote:

Mooj = Dink or Slope, or Gook.

Is this a contest between you and yourself to see how many racial slurs you can post in this thread?

Cueball Cueball's picture

No this is me objecting to you using pejorative racist slang that I can find on the Soldier of Fortune chat forum. The rest of what you write about is tedious, stupid and quasi-sociopathic in its single minded un-noteworthiness.

Fidel

FYI,  mujahideen are not all of the same ethnic group or even born in the same country. Mujahideen leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, for instance, was Tajiki.

Jalaluddin Haqqani used to be fawned over by Charlie Wilson as a magnificent person and holy ol' anticommunist jihadi. Now he's just a thug and a terrorist.

But the US Military loved terrorists and Afghan drug dealers in the 1980s and 90s. Brought many of them to the US to train in the black art of car bombing and hijacking planes etc. These are freedom fighters and "pious muslims" according to the US Military and CIA. What they are, really, are some of worst scum of the earth who were once fondly described as "freedom fighters" and even "holy warriors." The shine's off now.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Fidel wrote:

FYI,  "mujahideen"...

Thank you.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Closing for length.

Cueball and Fidel, I haven't read the whole thread. Would asking both of you to knock it the hell off be something you would listen to?

Pages

Topic locked