[Variable]

Originally Posted by A_Muminah

As-Salaamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullaah,

It probably just is human nature but the fact that the US sort of led the whole fight against the Soviets by providing weapons just made the people feel confident that the world will also be there for the reconstruction of the country. This thought is natural as they thought 'The US will obvsiously help us with reconstruction and to bring a stable economy since they are helping us in the defeat of the Soviets'. Was it wrong for them to think that?

Yeh. The Americans quietly donated significant amounts military aid to them. They didn't lead the fight, they didn't start the fight. They just helped them win it faster. To turn around and blame them for the internal conflict that Afghans engaged in afterwards is pretty callous. Besides that, aid did continue into enter the country and peace initiatives by the Americans did take place.

I think if the US had stayed out of the situation and allowed Afghanistan to handle its own business (whether they lost or won), I doubt it would have been as heated as the topic is now. Now, the Afghans feel betrayed for being used to help overthrow a threat to the world and were never really paid back for their service since their country was left in ruins because of it. If the US had not been involved, Afghanistan's government would have probably held a grudge against NATO. I personally, wouldnt have held anything against the US if they had not been involved.

Was-Salaamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahamtullaah.

I don't there is any right course of action that the US could have taken without being criticized.

[Aryan_]

Originally Posted by Variable

the United States isn't a charity organization and doesn't pretend to be.

America seeks to claim the credentials of being a charitable without actually being charitable.
[quote=Variable;13221]

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

The Afghans requested this aid.

Which Afghans requested it, and to what sort of aid?

It was not just America, Saudi Arabia too. In fact America had an agreement with Saudis that every dollar America spent on the "Mujahideen" would be matched by the Saudis. And that along with the large private donations by rich Islamist conscious Arab sheikhs (like our friend Mr. Osama) lead to the wahhabisation of the Afghan resistance. Radicals who believed in stoning, beheading and amputations like Sayyaf and Hekmatyar became the main beneficiaries of foreign funding, overlooking muslims like royalists, nationalists, and other non-wahhabi islamic groups who were in line with how Afghanistan was before the invasion. Indeed, the Americans went as far as to distribute Islamist literature in Afghanistan and Pakistan to radicalise and incite as many young muslims into "Jihad" against the foreign infidels. At no point did you Americans stop to consider what the effects the policies would be in the long run and what would happen if these newly radicalised elements turned on anyone else but the Soviets. Both countries were viewed as nothing more than battleground in the war against the Soviets.

What was the result? Two muslim countries that were very decent and comfortable to live in during the 70s have been turned into islamist warzones, with the same Mullahs Americans once funding now declaring not only minority sects heretical, but also female politicans, music and barbers. It's going to take the better part of this century to clean up the mess, and unfortunately millions of muslim lives.

Even today the American neocons have installed an incompetent lackey dictator in Afghanistan and are supporting another in Pakistan. Where isthe American belief in democracy they keep congratulating themselves about? Americans are spending a lot of money in Afghanistan, but it's not going anywhere but into the pockets of the corrupt.

I don't entirely blaming the Americans; the Soviets were to blame for their invasion and brutal occupation, but they were defeated and have paid the price in blood and with the loss of their nation. Those responsible for the policies have the blood of a lot of innocent people on their hands

I'm sick of the American hubris about "helping" Muslims who are ungrateful, because the only type of Muslim the Americans see (and support) is the turban wearing jihad screaming wahhabi radical.

Oh and happy 9/11 (only joking)

[ChotooMotoo]

So, if Saudi also donated a huge amount of money to the Afghan war, but not the reconstruction, how come only America gets the blame for Afghanistans problems? Is it somehow okay for Muslims to neglect eachother, if a Kaffir county neglects a Muslim one they get all the blame? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[A_Muminah]

As-Salaamu 'Alaykum,

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

So, if Saudi also donated a huge amount of money to the Afghan war, but not the reconstruction, how come only America gets the blame for Afghanistans problems? Is it somehow okay for Muslims to neglect eachother, if a Kaffir county neglects a Muslim one they get all the blame? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Who said Afghans dont hold anything against the Arabs? But then again, Saudi didnt go back into the country to fight 'terror', America did.

Was-Salaamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullaah

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Aryan_

America seeks to claim the credentials of being a charitable without actually being charitable.

Sure, on the thin surface of it they'll maintain that their positions are altruistic. That's what they do. But nobody seriously discussing the matter (even within the government) will describe the US as a charity - it's a nation state, and their charity falls into the whole context of foreign relations, national security etc.

Which Afghans requested it, and to what sort of aid?

It was not just America, Saudi Arabia too. In fact America had an agreement with Saudis that every dollar America spent on the "Mujahideen" would be matched by the Saudis. And that along with the large private donations by rich Islamist conscious Arab sheikhs (like our friend Mr. Osama) lead to the wahhabisation of the Afghan resistance. Radicals who believed in stoning, beheading and amputations like Sayyaf and Hekmatyar became the main beneficiaries of foreign funding, overlooking muslims like royalists, nationalists, and other non-wahhabi islamic groups who were in line with how Afghanistan was before the invasion. Indeed, the Americans went as far as to distribute Islamist literature in Afghanistan and Pakistan to radicalise and incite as many young muslims into "Jihad" against the foreign infidels. At no point did you Americans stop to consider what the effects the policies would be in the long run and what would happen if these newly radicalised elements turned on anyone else but the Soviets. Both countries were viewed as nothing more than battleground in the war against the Soviets.

What was the result? Two muslim countries that were very decent and comfortable to live in during the 70s have been turned into islamist warzones, with the same Mullahs Americans once funding now declaring not only minority sects heretical, but also female politicans, music and barbers. It's going to take the better part of this century to clean up the mess, and unfortunately millions of muslim lives.

Even today the American neocons have installed an incompetent lackey dictator in Afghanistan and are supporting another in Pakistan. Where isthe American belief in democracy they keep congratulating themselves about? Americans are spending a lot of money in Afghanistan, but it's not going anywhere but into the pockets of the corrupt.

I don't entirely blaming the Americans; the Soviets were to blame for their invasion and brutal occupation, but they were defeated and have paid the price in blood and with the loss of their nation. Those responsible for the policies have the blood of a lot of innocent people on their hands

I'm sick of the American hubris about "helping" Muslims who are ungrateful, because the only type of Muslim the Americans see (and support) is the turban wearing jihad screaming wahhabi radical.

Oh and happy 9/11 (only joking)

One can definitely fault the US for supplying aid to those guys, but hind-sight is 20/20. The situation was complicated, and to place the bulk of the blame on the Americans is to understate the affect surrounding states had on the situation. I'd be interested to hear more about the agreement the US had with Saudi.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by A_Muminah

As-Salaamu 'Alaykum,


Who said Afghans dont hold anything against the Arabs? But then again, Saudi didnt go back into the country to fight 'terror', America did.

Was-Salaamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullaah

Saudi Arabia didn't have a massive attack inflicted on them by people being supported by the Taliban.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Variable

Saudi Arabia didn't have a massive attack inflicted on them by people being supported by the Taliban.

Uh.. you did know that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi right?

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by A_Muminah

As-Salaamu 'Alaykum,


Who said Afghans dont hold anything against the Arabs? But then again, Saudi didnt go back into the country to fight 'terror', America did.

Was-Salaamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullaah

Being upset with America for your countries problems (especially those faced after the Soviets left) and being upset with them becuase for the last 6 years they have indescriminately bombed the hell out of the country are two different things.

Do Afghans have a grudge against arabs?

[A_Muminah]

As-Salaamu 'Alaykum,

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

Being upset with America for your countries problems (especially those faced after the Soviets left) and being upset with them becuase for the last 6 years they have indescriminately bombed the hell out of the country are two different things.

Do Afghans have a grudge against arabs?

The first one plays into the second one, darling. They dont blame the US for their countries problem. They just didnt expect to be left all alone with no support or economy to start reconstruction. That goes for all the countries that supported the Mujahideen during that period in which the US and Saudi played a huge role. Get it? It isnt very hard to understand.

The Afghans arent very font of the 'Arabs because they saw Saudi do the same thing that America did in the 1980s. Pack up and leave as soon as the Soviets left. Those arabs that did stay, got married and started new lives in Afghanistan. They took wealth they had in their home countries and decided to invest it in Afghanistan, where they started their new lives.

Long story short , Afghans still hate the US more than the Arabs.

Was-Salaamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullaah

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Uh.. you did know that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi right?

....yes. They were belonged to a group who were sheltered and supported by the Taliban.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by A_Muminah

As-Salaamu 'Alaykum,


The Afghans arent very font of the 'Arabs because they saw Saudi do the same thing that America did in the 1980s. Pack up and leave as soon as the Soviets left.

Actually they didn't, the Saudis continued to contribute to a lot of money well after the Americans stopped. They made sure it went to those who were closest as they saw it to Wahhabism.

Most of the reports I've read have said the Afghans didn't like them becaue they felt they just got in the way (one reason why they didn't play a significant role in the expulsion of the Soviet forces)

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Variable

....yes. They were belonged to a group who were sheltered and supported by the Taliban.

You can use the same argument against Americans: "The Americans are sheltering people who attacked Iraq." It still doesn't make sense.

That doesn't justify collective punishment, which is essentially people who condone(d) the attacks on Afghanistan are doing.

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

You can use the same argument against Americans: "The Americans are sheltering people who attacked Iraq." It still doesn't make sense.

That doesn't justify collective punishment, which is essentially people who condone(d) the attacks on Afghanistan are doing.

I don't think he actually condones the collective punishment of the Afghan people for crimes purportedly commited by the Taliban and Al-Queda. I think he's just regurgitating the reasoning presented by others for attacking Afghanistan (where Al-Queda was based) and not Saudi Arabia (from whence the attackers hailed, but a significant oil producer and supporter of the US economy). It's one thing to understand the reasoning, and another to agree with it.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

You can use the same argument against Americans: "The Americans are sheltering people who attacked Iraq." It still doesn't make sense.

That doesn't justify collective punishment, which is essentially people who condone(d) the attacks on Afghanistan are doing.

It wasn't a collective punishment so much as removing a (very real) threat and responding against those who were responsible.