Weston Super Saint

I can only imagine that when they spent millions of dollars training the Afghan security forces, teaching them tactics, providing weapons etc etc, that they thought the country would remain relatively 'safe' for a long time, maybe even indefinitely. I doubt that they envisaged that the Afghan forces would capitulate in little under 2 weeks, necessitating the requirement to remove American and British nationals. You do realise though that it isn't just American and British nationals being removed? It must also be embarrasing for : Germany Canada Pakistan Netherlands Switzerland Czech Republic Denmark Sweden Spain

I've heard he is undergoing some 're-education' work to ensure he comletely forgets his learned ability to defend once the clock reaches 60 minutes. Once he's completed this he should be up to date with our current tactics.

As previously posted, quote from Biden : source In what manner should they have left which wouldn't have been an awful strategic error and a huge mistake?

The planes and weapons were left for the Afghan security forces to use to protect themselves. The fact that the Afghan security forces capitulated and didn't use the hardware that was provided, presumably means they are the ones who are responsible and should be ashamed? Or was the US supposed to withdraw and leave nothing for the local forces - I can only imagine the hand wringing it that would have happened

Judging by Biden's statement I imagine they were hoping that the Afghan military wouldn't capitulate, but weren't betting the house on it! Source

The headline is taken from a quote by Ghani who claims the US left 'abruptly'. In the article (which I assume you didn't even bother to read!) he also claims : "The war torn nation will be under control in six months" (to be fair it actually only took two weeks, but I guess not in the same way he envisaged...). "The reason for our current situation is the decision was taken abruptly" (By Obama, over a decade ago!). "Protection of the people is a duty he will maintain" (pretty sure he's now left the country!). "The Afghan Army will sacrifice their lives for the nation" (or roll over and have their bellies tickled). I guess if you're happy to believe that the US left abruptly based on the ramblings of a man with such an obvious lack of grip on reality, then you go ahead and snuggle up to that comfort blanket!

Clever one that Antrim Fooled everyone.

And yet, in the grand scheme of a complete regime change for the entire country there has been little to no violence, especially given that these occurrences tend to be particularly bloody and brutal affairs. To elaborate for whelk and sue who are clearly struggling with the concept, I am NOT stating there has been no violence at all. I am pointing out that the amount of violence has been miniscule when compared to other regime changes when the entire government has been overthrown. Figured out what the word abruptly means yet?

Sorry, did I claim there was no violence?

Educate me oh wise one. Which bit of my post was wrong?

There has been little to no violence. The Russians tried to control Afghanistan, how did that end up?

Weird post.

Correct. Reports that local police, armed forces and politicians welcoming the Taliban with open arms. Sounds like the country has spoken about who it wants to control it....

He is, because he's a thick cunt that doesn't understand how the region works.

Right on cue....

I think this sums up Soggy (and a fair few others on here who are always very quick to pull out the 'you're a thick cunt' card)... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58186519

By that definition, the 'terrorist' attacks by ISIS (Manchester arena bombing etc) are also not 'terrorist' attacks as they have no political aims. Religious motivation and 'revenge' for attacks on Muslims but no political motivations.

We got involved with Afghanistan because the Taliban were supporters of Al-Qaeda providing them a base for operations following 911, we leant our support to the US as part of NATO. Iraq was about oil, despite Blair's claims. Syria, frankly, was none of our business. If we're not prepared to push North Korea around (because they may have nukes) or China or Russia because they are too big to be touched, we also have no business pushing smaller countries around because we don't like the way they are being run. It's not the place of the US or UK to dictate how independent countries should be run! We don't interfere with Qatar, in fact we actively support them, despite their human rights atrocities! (Although I think we both broadly agree on the principle of letting countries Govern themselves!).

There are 35,000 US troops in Germany and over 9,000 US troops in the UK. The argument seems to be that US / UK / NATO troops should remain in Afghanistan because we don't like the current regime running the country / about to take control. Why is no-one arguing for US troops to invade North Korea or China using the same criteria?

The blokes he killed because he considered them to be "Chads" and therefore attractive to women. The event itself wasn't necessarily a premeditated political event, however, the Incel sub culture has very political motivations and goals. Look at the reaction from his contemporaries, very similar to those of terrorist attacks from other members of the organisation, where similarly innocent people were killed because of some warped idea.

Six fingers crossed that you make the play offs this season.

The violence is aimed at women who the Incel believe have been given far more freedoms than they should have due to their involvement in politics, i.e being given the vote has empowered them to be promiscuous. Maybe 'socio-political' is more pertinent, however, the fact that they see the violence as 'fighting back' against a politically correct landscape (one that they want to change but won't happen without politics being involved), links them inextricably to political aims. The fact that this fruit loop is currently being viewed as a 'martyr' by the other self proclaimed Incels also indicates the terrorist mindset of these nutjobs.

I don't think the definition of terrorist is being expanded. There is radicalisation based on a political agenda that occasionally culminates with extreme violence carried out against innocent civilians. That's pretty much the textbook definition of a terrorist.

Sorry, but I don't agree that this is a simple case of 'mental health' issues or someone being a bit sad and depressed. The guy held extremist views about women, what he would like to do to them and how he would like to kill them,. Put those same views in a religious context and he would be considered a terrorist in pretty much everyone's eyes.

Largely because you posted your nonsense post, which you already answered, all by yourself, on the Brexit thread, implying you thought there was a link between the cost of covid tests and Brexit. Sarcasm is the only way to deal with that level of fuckwittery.