Afghanistan

[Captain Z]

Wonder how those Mumsnetters would feel if their DS'S and DD'S had to travel in crates on an airplane. Fucking inhumane.

I mean... if it got them safely away from probable execution then I don't think anyone would complain?

It was never a realistic possibility anyway, you can't just shove people in the hold because it's not designed to be safe for human transportation and the plane would be overweight. The reality is, the resources that went into chartering that specific flight and the troops on the ground ensuring their safe passage could have been diverted into getting another plane load of humans out. As i said, I hope it haunts him forever, but he's clearly so blinded by his own sense of self-importance J doubt he'll give it much thought.

[Kankurette]

I don't know wtf I CAN do. I can't exactly go out to Afghanistan and fight the Taliban.

[Zetetic]

You probably could, but it doesn't seem like a good use of your time based on the last 20 years.

[Zetetic]

Alternative things you might be able to do:
- Join a local anti-immigration raids group (there are more ways you might be useful than you think)
- Join protests outside of Home Office installations.
- Donate to local clothes drives etc. for refugees who are here.
- Donate to cash UNHCR or Red Cross

[Kankurette]

Will money definitely get to people in need? Is it worth donating to grassroots orgs?

I can't go on protests for reasons I don't want to go into but will be happy to PM you if asked. Also, I'm an overweight, unfit 37-year-old disabled woman from a decadent western country. I don't rate my chances in Afghanistan.

[bgmnts]

Outside of protesting, donating and voting, what can most of us plebs do to enact any change? Hard as fuck to do anything really.

[Zetetic]

Will money definitely get to people in need?

Definitely is a high bar, but I've been instructed that UNHCR and Red Cross are as good a bet as any in other contexts.

Is it worth donating to grassroots orgs?

Dunno - I'd welcome any suggestions myself.

Also, I'm an overweight, unfit 37-year-old disabled woman from a decadent western country. I don't rate my chances in Afghanistan.

I reckon all these things make it less likely you'll walk into a well-mapped minefield, so you've got that going for you over the Paras.

[Buelligan]

Outside of protesting, donating and voting, what can most of us plebs do to enact any change? Hard as fuck to do anything really.

I think people need to make their outrage, about the way people are being murdered for profit, heard.  They need to make it a voice so loud, it can no longer be ignored.

Don't let this conversation be ignored.  Don't let it be diluted with discussions about women's rights or dog vs kiddies or any other diversion.  Keep on shouting about why companies like Lockheed Martin or BAE Systems are rolling in money - ask about what tax they're paying too.  And, if you know anyone who works for them, supplies them, ask them to think about what they're doing.

[idunnosomename]

yeah if you're worried about wimmen'girls take a look at Saudi who are our great mates. Qatar who are hosting the FIFA World Cup next year aint so hot either

[Kankurette]

yeah if you're worried about wimmen'girls take a look at Saudi who are our great mates. Qatar who are hosting the FIFA World Cup next year aint so hot either

If this is aimed at me, I agree with you and I don't know where anyone's getting me being pro-Saudi/Qatar from. The involvement of the Gulf/oil states is one of the many things putting me off top tier football - teams going to camps in Dubai, a place literally run on slave labour where Pakistani migrant workers have killed themselves and made it look like an accident so that their money will go to their families. That Club World Cup thingy Liverpool played in being played in Qatar (and Space playing it, despite their politics, because I guess human rights go out the window when football is concerned). The Euros having games in Azerbaijan despite it NOT EVEN BEING IN EUROPE and being an absolute nightmare to get to. You get the picture. It all stinks. Russia and Brazil are corrupt as hell but at least they have a footballing history. How many famous Qatari players can you name?

And wasn't bin Laden Saudi? And yet they get off scot-free while Afghanistan's been bombed to hell and back for years?

[Buelligan]

Not sure Bin Laden's nationality is a good basis for condemning a whole country, mind.  Bit unnecessary.

[Zetetic]

yeah if you're worried about wimmen'girls take a look at Saudi who are our great mates. Qatar who are hosting the FIFA World Cup next year aint so hot either

Okay. Now what? What is it supposed to argue for, in terms of my actions or any of the things I've suggested?

[idunnosomename]

it was prompted by Buelligan's post about military support to other Islamic theocratic states, nothing else

[Retinend]

And wasn't bin Laden Saudi? And yet they get off scot-free while Afghanistan's been bombed to hell and back for years?

The Taliban of Afghanistan were harbouring Al Qaeda, the organisation of Bin Laden, and that was the pretext for the invasion of 2001. Invading Saudi Arabia because Bin Ladin was Saudi by birth would have been nonsensical. What's more, the Taliban were an unrecognised terrorist state pre-2001, whereas Saudi Arabia has long had normalized relations, if not always good relations, with the US and the international community.

[MikeP]

The Taliban of Afghanistan were harbouring Al Qaeda, the organisation of Bin Laden, and that was the pretext for the invasion of 2001. Invading Saudi Arabia because Bin Ladin was Saudi by birth would have been nonsensical. What's more, the Taliban were an unrecognised terrorist state pre-2001, whereas Saudi Arabia has long had normalized relations, if not always good relations, with the US and the international community.

Just a bit of background.
Al-Qaeda as popularly viewed is one of the more modern super myths. In fact the expression was first used by the CIA during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan to refer to the muj, who we were actively supporting. It was an expression used by the muj to refer to their 'HQ(s)' and just means 'the base'. A very large collection of intel files was populated during this time, and given the heading Al Qaeda. After the total mishandling by the US/UK of the aftermath of the withdrawal of Soviet troops these files became the basis for tracking the interactions of the various muj splinter groups. Ultimately Al-Qaeda became the US term for any Islamic fundamentalist group. The Taliban are also muj who became the most powerful group, and are technically Al-Qaeda themselves.
Bin Laden, with others, was simply the financier of the various groups and thanks to the USA became the figurehead of the fight against percieved enemies, and he never used the expression Al Qaeda until after 911 when he realised that it was the term used by the west.

[Bronzy]

My fellow Americans, the president, me, has been fucked in his ass

[Pink Gregory]

Did anyone do an Animals of Pen Farthing Wood bit?  Is it too late?  Just throwing it out there.

[Retinend]

Just a bit of background.
Al-Qaeda as popularly viewed is one of the more modern super myths. In fact the expression was first used by the CIA during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan to refer to the muj, who we were actively supporting. It was an expression used by the muj to refer to their 'HQ(s)' and just means 'the base'. A very large collection of intel files was populated during this time, and given the heading Al Qaeda. After the total mishandling by the US/UK of the aftermath of the withdrawal of Soviet troops these files became the basis for tracking the interactions of the various muj splinter groups. Ultimately Al-Qaeda became the US term for any Islamic fundamentalist group. The Taliban are also muj who became the most powerful group, and are technically Al-Qaeda themselves.
Bin Laden, with others, was simply the financier of the various groups and thanks to the USA became the figurehead of the fight against percieved enemies, and he never used the expression Al Qaeda until after 911 when he realised that it was the term used by the west.

If I understand you right, you're saying that the name is problematic because Bin Laden tactically adopted the term, because it suited his purposes to do so, that the CIA assigned to his group. In that case - what was the name that Bin Laden used to refer to his group pre-9/11? I'll use that instead if it's more proper.

Regardless of when the name "Al Qaeda" coalesced into the accepted term for group, or how it has been abused or misunderstood since, there was a group headed by the charismatic Bin Laden and his inner circle of true believers. It was a tightly-knit group that operated internationally, so not Afghani in nature, but certainly was "harboured" by Afghanistan in the sense that only a pirate Islamist state like that run by the Taliban would turn a blind eye to them. They operated where it was safest for them to operate, including over the porous (historically British-imposed) border with Pakistan.

The mujahidiin of the 1980s were the historical origin of the Taliban, sure, and were the rag-tag forces that America supported in their battle for independence from Russian aggression. And sure, the Taliban grew out of that. That conflict created and emboldened many that would go on to be veteran jihadiists. To say that the Taliban are also mujahidiin is merely to say, in other words, that they were closely allied to the anti-western, pan-islamist[nb]though anti-shiite/radical sunni[/nb] ideology of Bin Laden's group.

Not sure what the point of picking apart "Al Qaeda" as a term is, unless you think that the reason the war in Afghanistan was bad was because the Taliban and Bin Laden were innocent. All lies have a grain of truth, and the grain of truth in "we must go to war in Afghanistan" was "the Taliban are bad people and they are harbouring the terrorist cell that conducted the attacks of 9/11".

[evilcommiedictator]

Al-Qaeda as popularly viewed is one of the more modern super myths.

And ISIS just came out of nowhere and were a great bunch of lads?

[Kankurette]

'Woke culture is making young men admire the Taliban' is one of the most batshit Daily Mail headlines I've seen in years, and that's something.

Aren't the Taliban a bit brown for the usual people whining about 'woke culture' though?

[buttgammon]

Say what you like about the Taliban but they don't go in for all this political correctness, they're not woke and they don't like the Euro.

[poo]

The Sahel is another major breeding ground for the old terror fuckdown. Possibly even more of a threat given proximity to Europe and migrant routes through N Africa. Expect fun and games when it completely turns to dust (week next Tuesday) and people come flooding out of there in their tens of millions.

[Kankurette]

They're not very kind to dogs though.

[Blumf]

Say what you like about the Taliban but they don't go in for all this political correctness, they're not woke and they don't like the Euro.

Still measure their fruit and veg in pounds and ounces.

[buttgammon]

Still measure their fruit and veg in pounds and ounces.

You can't move for bendy bananas in the dukans and bazaars of Kabul!

[Fambo Number Mive]

Raab has just started appearing before the Foreign Affairs Committee over Afghanistan.

[Kankurette]

Gal-Dem's got a list of things people here can do.

[MikeP]

If I understand you right, you're saying that the name is problematic because Bin Laden tactically adopted the term, because it suited his purposes to do so, that the CIA assigned to his group. In that case - what was the name that Bin Laden used to refer to his group pre-9/11? I'll use that instead if it's more proper.

Not exactly problematic, just inaccurate. According to the man himself "We are the children of an Islamic Nation, with Prophet Muhammad as its leader, our Lord is one ... and all the true believers are brothers". Again to quote the man "So the situation isn't like the West portrays it, that there is an 'organization' with a specific name" . Obviously the expression (particularly in arabic) Children of an Islamic nation does not run easily off the western tongue. (As with the now obsolete ISIS which was approximately 'al-Dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wa al-Sham'). Al Qaeda was widely recognised as a name in the West, so Al Qaeda it became. As a result Al Qaeda is as good a handle as any, but not to be seen either as accurate or representing a coherent organisation.

Regardless of when the name "Al Qaeda" coalesced into the accepted term for group, or how it has been abused or misunderstood since, there was a group headed by the charismatic Bin Laden and his inner circle of true believers. It was a tightly-knit group that operated internationally, so not Afghani in nature, but certainly was "harboured" by Afghanistan in the sense that only a pirate Islamist state like that run by the Taliban would turn a blind eye to them. They operated where it was safest for them to operate, including over the porous (historically British-imposed) border with Pakistan.

Not at any time a tightly knitted group, nor 'harboured' by Afghanistan. Even at the height of it's quasi stability Afghanistan was always an uncomfortable collection of barely subdued walords, and the so-called Al Qaeda had exactly the same structure. A collection of autonomous islamic activists who tried to subvert what they thought of as the poison from the west. If you want to visualise a structure, see it as Bin Laden and his immediate associates acting in the same way as a bank works in the business world. If a group wanted to commit an act of resistance they would approach the 'bank' for financing and thus approval. As with the bank, some of the Bin Laden 'group' were involved with the activists in much the same way as a bank may have a representative on a board of directors. And obviously also suggesting actions that would be of the most effectiveness and attract the most funding. This advice did not have to be followed though.
Agreed not Afghani in fact, but definitely in nature. Afghanistan is simply the only country in the world where nothing could be done about them and so attracts terrorist groups rather like the famous pass in Wyoming attracted the hole in the wall gang.

The mujahidiin of the 1980s were the historical origin of the Taliban, sure, and were the rag-tag forces that America supported in their battle for independence from Russian aggression. And sure, the Taliban grew out of that. That conflict created and emboldened many that would go on to be veteran jihadiists. To say that the Taliban are also mujahidiin is merely to say, in other words, that they were closely allied to the anti-western, pan-islamist[nb]though anti-shiite/radical sunni[/nb] ideology of Bin Laden's group.

Closely allied to the Bin Laden group ideology, yes, but not subservient to Bin Laden or his associates. Al Qaeda now comprises five committees and a media poduction company. The committees cover military activities, finance, law, religion, and PR. A highly organised conglomerate but still not in actual control of the fourteen or more terrorist groups under its remit.

Not sure what the point of picking apart "Al Qaeda" as a term is, unless you think that the reason the war in Afghanistan was bad was because the Taliban and Bin Laden were innocent. All lies have a grain of truth, and the grain of truth in "we must go to war in Afghanistan" was "the Taliban are bad people and they are harbouring the terrorist cell that conducted the attacks of 9/11".

I wasn't picking anything apart, I was just giving background information on the reality of the organisation. I just thought there might be people browsing these pages that might be interested.
I'm not qualified to define who or what is bad or not. The Taliban have their beliefs and are acting upon them. The Americans invaded Afghanistan because they wanted to overthrow the government that was refusing to hand Bin Laden over to them after 9/11. Bush had asked the CIA (and others) to prove that Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda were behind the attack, but they were unable to do so. A massive disinfomation campaign ensued which convinced the US population that Bin Laden was the mastermind and persuaded them to support the invasion. Bin Laden denied any involvement and the Afghan government refused to hand him over. He continued to deny involvement until after the Afghan government was overthown by the US years later. From the Taliban position it could be seen that a foreign power had invaded their country without justification. And it could also be argued they were right. Many of their subsequent activities cannot be said to be acceptable, but they do as they believe right.
If China invaded the UK, because they claimed that a frenchman had committed atrocities in China should be handed over, then I would also consider action against the invaders supportable. But not with attacks against innocent members of the chinese (or any other nationality) public anywhere in the world. That IS terrorism.

[MikeP]

The Sahel is another major breeding ground for the old terror fuckdown. Possibly even more of a threat given proximity to Europe and migrant routes through N Africa. Expect fun and games when it completely turns to dust (week next Tuesday) and people come flooding out of there in their tens of millions.

JNIM

[poo]

Taliban hunting down women cricketers - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/58396310

What are they like eh!