Taliban reject extension of deadline for foreign troops to leave Afghanistan as evacuations continue

Squire

Active member
A time of great danger approaches rapidly as the deadline of August 31 for the departure of foreign troops approaches.

All the bravado about the US and others bombing the Taliban is just bluster because there would be tens of thousands of deaths among Afghan civilians in case of massive bombings.

The Taliban now has control of the abandoned US war machines and munitions and their retaliation could be massive if there is bombing of Afghanistan.

The incompetence of the evacuation of Afghanistan lies with the Pentagon who have had control of Afghanistan for 20 years and their personnel and processes grossly underperformed in the evacuation.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08...deadline-foreign-troops-leave-kabul/100401208

Taliban reject extension of deadline for foreign troops to leave Afghanistan as evacuations continue

The Taliban have rejected the possibility foreign troops could stay in Afghanistan to continue evacuations past the August 31 deadline.

Since the Taliban seized the capital Kabul on August 15, the US has been carrying out the evacuation in coordination with the Taliban, who have held off on attacking under a 2020 withdrawal deal with the Trump administration.

However, the Pentagon says the US hasn't ruled out keeping its forces in Afghanistan past the current deadline.

Britain and France are pressing for an extension to allow more people to be airlifted to safety.

Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen told the UK's Sky News there would be "consequences" if foreign troops stayed beyond the deadline, saying it would become an "extended occupation".

"If the US or UK were to seek additional time to continue evacuations — the answer is no. Or there would be consequences," he said.

He later told the BBC that any Afghans with the proper documents were free to leave on commercial flights.

"This is not a convincing justification if they say there are a lot of Afghans who have worked with foreign troops and they are still here, they have not been evacuated," he said.

He said the US staying beyond August 31 would be "a clear violation" of the Doha agreement.

The consequences of such a violation would be up to the Taliban leadership, he told the BBC.

As the world is stunned by the images of huge crowds swarming the airport in Kabul, desperate to flee Taliban rule over Afghanistan, other nations are slowly responding. So what is Australia doing?

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said the US focus was on completing the evacuation program by the end of the month.

"We are head down focussed on keeping these numbers up as best we can getting as many people out as we can by the end of the month," he said.

"And if there needs to be a discussion about extending that timeline then we absolutely will have that discussion at the appropriate time with the commander-in-chief."

Mr Biden's national security adviser Jake Sullivan said later at the White House that talks with the Taliban were continuing.

"We are in talks with the Taliban on a daily basis through both political and security channels," he said, adding that ultimately it would be Mr Biden's decision alone whether to continue military-led evacuation operations beyond August 31.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson called a virtual G7 on Monday meeting in hope of having some impact on the chaotic course of events. ...
 

Texan

Active member
That's cute that the taliban rejected our deadline extension. If we had a real commander in chief, he would laugh at their rejection and put a bounty on every taliban leaders' head by name effective September 1. They would have new leaders within the week.
 

Squire

Active member
There was no reason to invade Afghanistan in 2001.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Taliban's predecessors were allies of the USA and were welcome visitors in the Ronald Reagan and George H Bush White Houses.

George W Bush and the Republicans made a big mistake by invading Afghanistan.

There would have been a bigger reduction in Islamic extremism and terrorism if the USA had bombed Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan.

If Americans believed Afghanistan deserved liberation and democracy, why did they not also believe that autocratic allies Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Jordan deserved to have their autocratic leaderships overthrown in favor of democracy and to suppress terrorism which was being originated by Sunni extremists from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states? All suicide bombers have been Sunni Muslims.

 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
There was no reason to invade Afghanistan in 2001.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Taliban's predecessors were allies of the USA and were welcome visitors in the Ronald Reagan and George H Bush White Houses.

George W Bush and the Republicans made a big mistake by invading Afghanistan.

There would have been a bigger reduction in Islamic extremism and terrorism if the USA had bombed Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan.

If Americans believed Afghanistan deserved liberation and democracy, why did they not also believe that autocratic allies Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Jordan deserved to have their autocratic leaderships overthrown in favor of democracy and to suppress terrorism which was being originated by Sunni extremists from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states? All suicide bombers have been Sunni Muslims.

What happened in the 1980s really had nothing to do with the reasons why we were attacked on 9/11/2001.

Osama bin Laden had been banished from Saudi Arabia in 1992. He and his followers were in Afghanistan on 9/11. If the US wanted to respond to the people who attacked us, we to go to Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
What happened in the 1980s really had nothing to do with the reasons why we were attacked on 9/11/2001.

You were attacked because the USA ruined Bin Ladens plans to take over Saudi's military. The saudi royals felt they were under threat from Iraq and Iran, and they felt that their army would not be able to stop them if they attacked. The Saudi royal family was contemplating letting Bin Laden run their military because he offered to strengthen their military by integrating the Taliban into it. Instead the US aligned themselves with Saudi Arabia which meant the Saudi'sdidn't need him or his taliban. 9/11 was his revenge for screwing up his plans to become the Middle Easts military leader.
 
Last edited:

Squire

Active member
What happened in the 1980s really had nothing to do with the reasons why we were attacked on 9/11/2001.

Osama bin Laden had been banished from Saudi Arabia in 1992. He and his followers were in Afghanistan on 9/11. If the US wanted to respond to the people who attacked us, we to go to Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia.
It had everything to do with the 1970s and 1980s.

Bin Laden was Uncle Sam's monster cockup.

Ronald Reagan and George H Bush fostered, nurtured, armed, trained and financed Bin Laden for the purpose of USA's support of terrorism against Russia and Afghans in the 1970s-1980s.

Robin Cook, the foreign secretary of the UK government at the time believed that the CIA had trained, armed, funded and supported Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Robin Cook had access to the highest level security information available from the UK spooks and the UK's allies.

Robin Cook wrote: "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the '80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage war against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan."

"Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden

Allegations
In a 2004 article entitled "Al-Qaeda's origins and links", the BBC wrote:

During the anti-Soviet war Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA.[4]

Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary in the UK from 1997–2001, believed the CIA had provided arms to the Arab mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden, writing, "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the '80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage war against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan."[5]

In conversation with former British Defence Secretary Michael Portillo, two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto said Osama bin Laden was initially pro-American.[6] Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, has also stated that bin Laden once expressed appreciation for the United States' help in Afghanistan. On CNN's Larry King program he said:[7]

Bandar bin Sultan: This is ironic. In the mid-'80s, if you remember, we and the United - Saudi Arabia and the United States were supporting the Mujahideen to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets. He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn't it ironic?

Larry King: How ironic. In other words, he came to thank you for helping bring America to help him.

Bandar bin Sultan: Right.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
There was no reason to invade Afghanistan in 2001.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Taliban's predecessors were allies of the USA and were welcome visitors in the Ronald Reagan and George H Bush White Houses.

George W Bush and the Republicans made a big mistake by invading Afghanistan.

There would have been a bigger reduction in Islamic extremism and terrorism if the USA had bombed Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan.

If Americans believed Afghanistan deserved liberation and democracy, why did they not also believe that autocratic allies Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Jordan deserved to have their autocratic leaderships overthrown in favor of democracy and to suppress terrorism which was being originated by Sunni extremists from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states? All suicide bombers have been Sunni Muslims.

You are absolutely correct. Some of your points were also highlighted by Tulsi Gabbard. And we saw what happened to her. But good government company men are NOT interested in these facts, and will just rationalize or dismiss them away. Just like with WMD's. "Oh well, he still is a bad guy(now that the US don't need him anymore), and just needs to go".

The US was attacked on 9/11

for its direct aggression against Muslims in many countries(Bosnia, Herzegovina, Somalia, etc.).
for its direct part in the Qana massacre in Lebanon(1996).
for the deaths of more than a million Iraqi civilians, because of the UN/USA sanctioning of Iraq.
for its support and presence in SA. The most repressive Human Rights regimes in the ME.
for its support of Israel. And, Israel's Zionist HR aggressions against the Palestinian people.
for its perceived weakness, because of its withdrawals from Lebanon, Somalia, and Viet Nam.
for its support of Soviet's atrocities in Chechnya. And, support of India's oppression in Kashmir. for its direct support of the Manila government against the Muslims in the Philippines.
for having American troops in SA. Especially, since SA houses the top 2 holiest sites in the Islamic world(Mecca and Medina).

So, millions of civilians and Muslims dead, and the desecration of its religious sites, well yeah, I'd say that they might be a bit pissed.

Unfortunately, America would never bomb SA. Even if they slice and dice a journalist for criticizing the government. They are the only thing keeping America from an economic disaster. As long as the Saudis control OPEC, and are willing to guarantee that the Petrodollars will always be traded in US dollars, then the America military will always continue to be their bitch. Remember the "Nixon deal" with SA?


America doesn't have any choices. It must do whatever Israel and SA tells it to do. Or, risk economic disaster. Hence why all US regime-change wars(none declared), were only against countries that wanted to trade their petrol dollars in another currency. Or, wanted to nationalize the distribution of their own oil reserves. It is also ironic, that 15 of the 19 hijacker of 9/11 were from SA. Yet, the Saudi Family was the only plane allowed to leave the US during 9/11. Sorta odd that we still support this regime, and fight in Afghanistan!!

War on Terror? War on Poverty? War on Drugs? War on Communism? War on Freedom? These meaningless platitudes, should be up there with all the other "deepities" and bullshit.

 
Last edited:
Top