|
|
Berpaut Pada Sayap Kapal Terbang Tak Sanggup Duduk Di Afghanistan
[Copy link]
|
|
|
Punat_button replied at 17-8-2021 03:45 PM
wahabi bukan sunni? so kapir ka tak?
yup akidah beza
Jakim tak fatwa Haram cuma tak sesuai kat Malaysia
Lagi link http://e-smaf.islam.gov.my/e-smaf/index.php/main/mainv1/fatwa/pr/15888
"
iii Kehadiran mana-mana aliran pemikiran baharu seperti pemikiran Islam Liberal, fahaman salafiah wahabiah yang melampau, fahaman syiah dan fahaman sufi yang menyeleweng dan terkeluar dari mazhab arus perdana boleh menyumbang kepada kekeliruan pemikiran masyarakat awam dan akan mengancam perpaduan yang sedia ada di Malaysia.
"
Tak pulak mention word tu nauzubillah. Jgn misquote ye. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
korang kene faham yang taliban ambil alih tampuk pemerintahan afghanistan ni secara mengejut. tanpa ada intel atau risikan tau-tau je taliban dah serang ibunegara. ada yang menyalahkan USA sebab pasukan perisik diorang gagal dapat info ni. Taliban dapat conquer balik Afghanistan kurang dari 10 hari. tu yg ramai rakyat die terkejut dan sanggup nak berpaut pada kapal terbang tu. kalau afghanistan ni dikelilingi laut mcm kite boleh jugak terjun laut.
tapi meols pun tak terkejut USA fail sebab Capitol, macam Putrajaya la tu pun boleh kene ambush kan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
zasrfikri replied at 17-8-2021 03:56 PM
arab saudi wahabi kan ? then nape arab saudi yg ada mekah tu ada wahabi jika wahabi jahat sangat. pl ...
Yg jelas nyata, Saudi, tapi tempias jiran jiran n bertebaran juga. Kita sedar tak sedar pun nak ikut entah mana mana ustaz celebrity bawak akidah lain dgn kita.
As to kenapa kat sana, sejarah n power dynamics maybe ada yg boleh explain sedikit sebnayak.
Jawapan panjang
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/1/7/can-mohammed-bin-salman-break-the-saudi-wahhabi-pact
But yg I fikir, sebab xtahu n xfaham, kita even dengan syiah pun terima kita sama sama islam so tak boleh suka suka nak perang, same w wahabi la kot, bila dia dapat authority, means power in their hand kena respect.
Pemimpin kena respect walaupun jahat berdosa bergelumang rasuah, tak boleh nak gulingkan. (Tapi afghan ni, pemimpin in power yg berundur?) In all situation kena pentingkan harmony unless kena serang. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ditelan mati emak, diluah mati bapa. Apa Jadi Sebenarnya di Afghanistan?
1. Dunia dikejutkan dengan kemaraan Taliban yang kembali menguasai majoriti wilayah Afghanistan, 20 tahun selepas ia dikalahkan Amerika susulan serangan World Trade Center pada 11 September 2001 (Peristiwa 9/11).
2. Kenapa Amerika berundur membiarkan Afghanistan jatuh ke tangan Taliban? Apa beza Taliban, Al-Qaeda, dan Daesh/ISIS? Kenapa Amerika tidak terus menggunakan serangan dron untuk hapuskan atau sekat kemaraan Taliban? Jawapannya kerana percaturan Amerika untuk menghalang peluasan geoekonomi China di Selatan Asia Tengah, serta mengalihkan sumber mereka untuk mengimbangi Belt and Road Initiative China, di samping pemodenan tentera Amerika untuk mengimbangi Beijing di Laut China Selatan.
3. Taliban atau dalam Bahasa Pashtun bermaksud ‘pelajar’ sebenarnya berasal daripada kumpulan pelajar agama Afghan aliran Deobandi yang menuntut di Pakistan pasca-penjajahan Kesatuan Soviet di Afghanistan.
4. Selepas Kesatuan Soviet berundur daripada Afghanistan pada 1989, pengasas Taliban iaitu Mullah Omar tidak berpuas hati dengan kerajaan Afghanistan ketika itu yang tidak melaksanakan undang-undang Syariah, di samping kadar rasuah yang terlalu teruk.
5. Taliban berbeza dengan Al-Qaeda dan Daesh/ISIS; meski pun ketiga-tiga gerakan ini mengikuti mazhab Sunni dan bercita-cita menegakkan undang-undang Syariah, namun pendekatan mereka sangat jauh berbeza.
6. Jika Taliban berpegang pada aliran Deobandi yang menekankan doktrin taqlid dan sebahagian besar mengikuti Mazhab Hanafi, Al-Qaeda yang diasaskan Osama Bin Laden berpegang kepada Wahhabisme serta kaedah kekerasan untuk memerangi Barat (antaranya didakwa mendalangi serangan 11/9). Walaupun ada sumber lain mengatakan ia hasil rancangan AS sendiri untuk mencetuskan ‘penjajahan baru’ terhadap negara Islam.
7. Daesh/ISIS pula berpegang pada Wahhabi-Salafis yang lebih kuat menegaskan agenda takfiri iaitu menghukum sesiapa yang berbeza pandangan dengan mereka (terutama orang Islam sendiri) sebagai kafir dan halal untuk dibunuh.
Cnp ajork |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
korang naik la tongkang cam rohingya,bangla,indon tu semua mai Msia... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by crossline at 17-8-2021 06:19 PM
likilu replied at 17-8-2021 04:25 PM
Yg jelas nyata, Saudi, tapi tempias jiran jiran n bertebaran juga. Kita sedar tak sedar pun nak ik ...
Terbaik penjelasan uols. Walau panjang lebar tapi boleh terima n paham. Selama ni ingatkan wahabi tu genreal je, as mcm fasik, liberal etc.. Rupanya mmg ada fahaman as in Syiah... Tak sangkanya Saudi mmg dah di konker Wahbi...
Interms of authorities or pelaksanaan hukum bunuh bg pesalah mengikut syariah tu Islam tersekat sebab human rights la, open minded la, more on tak nak Islam ni nmpk jahat...
Part syiah tu masa I belajar, tak dapat nak di bendung masa awal2, ustaz kata Allah nak jdkan Syiah as contoh ajaran sesat (i tak habiskan ayat ni, u ols fikir maksudnya ye) Thanks sharing ilmu & info. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skuau replied at 17-8-2021 06:13 PM
korang naik la tongkang cam rohingya,bangla,indon tu semua mai Msia...
dorg pun tamo dtg msia..baik g turki.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
edayildiz replied at 17-8-2021 02:37 PM
kenapa pm dorg nk kena lari?kalau letak jwtn mcm biasa..stay jer kt agfhan tu kena bunuh la ye..kala ...
Sebab pm tu Syiah uols... U kena faham syiah tu macam mana, + taliban mungkin anti syiah. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
likilu replied at 17-8-2021 02:01 PM
More like sebaliknya kan
I pernah baca buku cerita, kisah kat India tapi ada scene afghan.
They all hantar wakil ke middle east bukan jalang2 org...mmg org yg paham pasak middle east,leh ckp ereb of course..tau jgk peel ereb tu camner....
Yg afghanistan ni iols tak abis baca lg...tp mmg ada yg keje for us n brit kat sana before they all blah gitu je kan...cumanya bila dah mcm terttp gitu..takde proper educatio ..desperate..ngk jd mcm selatan filipina... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tak kisah la sape naik janji jangan aniaya wanita, kanak kanak, warga emas dan binatang tak berdosa....
Agak nya tg lari ni mungkin spy Us kot....sebab trump naik dulu dia umum nak tarik tentera dr Af..pastu dlm intebiu yg noah trevor tu ade ex chief white house ckp diorang sgt piss off sebab mengenangkan nasib operatif dan intel diorang kt sane yg dah byak tolong sumbat org taliban dlm jail....pon salahkan rusia sebab angkat trump.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FALL OF KABUL: A TIMELINE OF THE TALIBAN'S FAST ADVANCE AFTER 40 YEARS OF CONFLICT
Feb. 29, 2020 Trump negotiates deal with the Taliban setting U.S. withdrawal date for May 1, 2021
Nov. 17, 2020 Pentagon announces it will reduce troop levels to 2500 in Afghanistan
Jan. 15, 2020 Inspector general reveals 'hubris and mendacity' of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan
Feb 3. 2021 Afghan Study Group report warns against withdrawing 'irresponsibly'
March Military command makes last-ditch effort to talk Biden out of withdrawal
April 14 Biden announces withdrawal will be completed by Sept. 11
May 4 - Taliban fighters launch a major offensive on Afghan forces in southern Helmand province. They also attack in at least six other provinces
May 11 - The Taliban capture Nerkh district just outside the capital Kabul as violence intensifies across the country
June 7 - Senior government officials say more than 150 Afghan soldiers are killed in 24 hours as fighting worsens. They add that fighting is raging in 26 of the country's 34 provinces
June 22 - Taliban fighters launch a series of attacks in the north of the country, far from their traditional strongholds in the south. The UN envoy for Afghanistan says they have taken more than 50 of 370 districts
July 2 - The U.S. evacuates Bagram Airfield in the middle of the night
July 5 - The Taliban say they could present a written peace proposal to the Afghan government as soon as August
July 21 - Taliban insurgents control about a half of the country's districts, according to the senior U.S. general, underlining the scale and speed of their advance
July 25 - The United States vows to continue to support Afghan troops "in the coming weeks" with intensified airstrikes to help them counter Taliban attacks
July 26 - The United Nations says nearly 2,400 Afghan civilians were killed or wounded in May and June in escalating violence, the highest number for those months since records started in 2009
Aug. 6 - Zaranj in the south of the country becomes the first provincial capital to fall to the Taliban in years. Many more are to follow in the ensuing days, including the prized city of Kunduz in the north
Aug. 13 - Pentagon insists Kabul is not under imminent threat
Aug. 14 - The Taliban take the major northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif and, with little resistance, Pul-e-Alam, capital of Logar province just 70 km (40 miles) south of Kabul. The United States sends more troops to help evacuate its civilians from Kabul as Afghan President Ashraf Ghani says he is consulting with local and international partners on next steps
Aug. 15 - The Taliban take the key eastern city of Jalalabad without a fight, effectively surrounding Kabul
Taliban insurgents enter Kabul, an interior ministry official says, as the United States evacuate diplomats from its embassy by helicopter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'After 20 years, I've learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw U.S. forces': Read Biden's address to the nation on Afghanistan in full
Good afternoon. I want to speak today to the unfolding situation in Afghanistan: the developments that have taken place in the last week and the steps we're taking to address the rapidly evolving events.
My national security team and I have been closely monitoring the situation on the ground in Afghanistan and moving quickly to execute the plans we had put in place to respond to every constituency, including -- and contingency -- including the rapid collapse we're seeing now.
I'll speak more in a moment about the specific steps we're taking, but I want to remind everyone how we got here and what America's interests are in Afghanistan.
We went to Afghanistan almost 20 years ago with clear goals: get those who attacked us on September 11th, 2001, and make sure al Qaeda could not use Afghanistan as a base from which to attack us again.
We did that. We severely degraded al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We never gave up the hunt for Osama bin Laden, and we got him. That was a decade ago.
Our mission in Afghanistan was never supposed to have been nation building. It was never supposed to be creating a unified, centralized democracy.
Our only vital national interest in Afghanistan remains today what it has always been: preventing a terrorist attack on American homeland.
I've argued for many years that our mission should be narrowly focused on counterterrorism -- not counterinsurgency or nation building. That's why I opposed the surge when it was proposed in 2009 when I was Vice President.
And that's why, as President, I am adamant that we focus on the threats we face today in 2021 -- not yesterday's threats.
Today, the terrorist threat has metastasized well beyond Afghanistan: al Shabaab in Somalia, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Nursa in Syria, ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq and establishing affiliates in multiple countries in Africa and Asia. These threats warrant our attention and our resources.
We conduct effective counterterrorism missions against terrorist groups in multiple countries where we don't have a permanent military presence.
If necessary, we will do the same in Afghanistan. We've developed counterterrorism over-the-horizon capability that will allow us to keep our eyes firmly fixed on any direct threats to the United States in the region and to act quickly and decisively if needed.
When I came into office, I inherited a deal that President Trump negotiated with the Taliban. Under his agreement, U.S. forces would be out of Afghanistan by May 1, 2021 -- just a little over three months after I took office.
U.S. forces had already drawn down during the Trump administration from roughly 15,500 American forces to 2,500 troops in country, and the Taliban was at its strongest militarily since 2001.
The choice I had to make, as your President, was either to follow through on that agreement or be prepared to go back to fighting the Taliban in the middle of the spring fighting season.
There would have been no ceasefire after May 1. There was no agreement protecting our forces after May 1. There was no status quo of stability without American casualties after May 1.
There was only the cold reality of either following through on the agreement to withdraw our forces or escalating the conflict and sending thousands more American troops back into combat in Afghanistan, lurching into the third decade of conflict.
I stand squarely behind my decision. After 20 years, I've learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw U.S. forces.
That's why we were still there. We were clear-eyed about the risks. We planned for every contingency.
But I always promised the American people that I will be straight with you. The truth is: This did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated.
So what's happened? Afghanistan political leaders gave up and fled the country. The Afghan military collapsed, sometimes without trying to fight.
If anything, the developments of the past week reinforced that ending U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan now was the right decision.
American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves. We spent over a trillion dollars. We trained and equipped an Afghan military force of some 300,000 strong -- incredibly well equipped -- a force larger in size than the militaries of many of our NATO allies.
We gave them every tool they could need. We paid their salaries, provided for the maintenance of their air force -- something the Taliban doesn't have. Taliban does not have an air force. We provided close air support.
We gave them every chance to determine their own future. What we could not provide them was the will to fight for that future.
There's some very brave and capable Afghan special forces units and soldiers, but if Afghanistan is unable to mount any real resistance to the Taliban now, there is no chance that 1 year -- 1 more year, 5 more years, or 20 more years of U.S. military boots on the ground would've made any difference.
And here's what I believe to my core: It is wrong to order American troops to step up when Afghanistan's own armed forces would not. If the political leaders of Afghanistan were unable to come together for the good of their people, unable to negotiate for the future of their country when the chips were down, they would never have done so while U.S. troops remained in Afghanistan bearing the brunt of the fighting for them.
And our true strategic competitors -- China and Russia -- would love nothing more than the United States to continue to funnel billions of dollars in resources and attention into stabilizing Afghanistan indefinitely.
When I hosted President Ghani and Chairman Abdullah at the White House in June and again when I spoke by phone to Ghani in July, we had very frank conversations. We talked about how Afghanistan should prepare to fight their civil wars after the U.S. military departed, to clean up the corruption in government so the government could function for the Afghan people. We talked extensively about the need for Afghan leaders to unite politically.
They failed to do any of that.
I also urged them to engage in diplomacy, to seek a political settlement with the Taliban. This advice was flatly refused. Mr. Ghani insisted the Afghan forces would fight, but obviously he was wrong.
So I'm left again to ask of those who argue that we should stay: How many more generations of America's daughters and sons would you have me send to fight Afghans -- Afghanistan's civil war when Afghan troops will not? How many more lives -- American lives -- is it worth? How many endless rows of headstones at Arlington National Cemetery?
I'm clear on my answer: I will not repeat the mistakes we've made in the past -- the mistake of staying and fighting indefinitely in a conflict that is not in the national interest of the United States, of doubling down on a civil war in a foreign country, of attempting to remake a country through the endless military deployments of U.S. forces.
Those are the mistakes we cannot continue to repeat, because we have significant vital interests in the world that we cannot afford to ignore.
I also want to acknowledge how painful this is to so many of us. The scenes we're seeing in Afghanistan, they're gut-wrenching, particularly for our veterans, our diplomats, humanitarian workers, for anyone who has spent time on the ground working to support the Afghan people.
For those who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan and for Americans who have fought and served in the country -- serve our country in Afghanistan -- this is deeply, deeply personal.
It is for me as well. I've worked on these issues as long as anyone. I've been throughout Afghanistan during this war -- while the war was going on -- from Kabul to Kandahar to the Kunar Valley.
I've traveled there on four different occasions. I met with the people. I've spoken to the leaders. I spent time with our troops. And I came to understand firsthand what was and was not possible in Afghanistan.
So, now we're fercus [sic] -- focused on what is possible.
We will continue to support the Afghan people. We will lead with our diplomacy, our international influence, and our humanitarian aid.
We'll continue to push for regional diplomacy and engagement to prevent violence and instability.
We'll continue to speak out for the basic rights of the Afghan people -- of women and girls -- just as we speak out all over the world.
I have been clear that human rights must be the center of our foreign policy, not the periphery. But the way to do it is not through endless military deployments; it's with our diplomacy, our economic tools, and rallying the world to join us.
Now, let me lay out the current mission in Afghanistan. I was asked to authorize -- and I did -- 6,000 U.S. troops to deploy to Afghanistan for the purpose of assisting in the departure of U.S. and Allied civilian personnel from Afghanistan, and to evacuate our Afghan allies and vulnerable Afghans to safety outside of Afghanistan.
Our troops are working to secure the airfield and to ensure continued operation of both the civilian and military flights. We're taking over air traffic control.
We have safely shut down our embassy and transferred our diplomats. Our dip- -- our diplomatic presence is now consolidated at the airport as well.
Over the coming days, we intend to transport out thousands of American citizens who have been living and working in Afghanistan.
We'll also continue to support the safe departure of civilian personnel -- the civilian personnel of our Allies who are still serving in Afghanistan.
Operation Allies Refugee [Refuge], which I announced back in July, has already moved 2,000 Afghans who are eligible for Special Immigration Visas and their families to the United States.
In the coming days, the U.S. military will provide assistance to move more SIV-eligible Afghans and their families out of Afghanistan.
We're also expanding refugee access to cover other vulnerable Afghans who worked for our embassy: U.S. non-governmental agencies -- or the U.S. non-governmental organizations; and Afghans who otherwise are at great risk; and U.S. news agencies.
I know that there are concerns about why we did not begin evacuating Afghans -- civilians sooner. Part of the answer is some of the Afghans did not want to leave earlier -- still hopeful for their country. And part of it was because the Afghan government and its supporters discouraged us from organizing a mass exodus to avoid triggering, as they said, 'a crisis of confidence.'
American troops are performing this mission as professionally and as effectively as they always do, but it is not without risks.
As we carry out this departure, we have made it clear to the Taliban: If they attack our personnel or disrupt our operation, the U.S. presence will be swift and the response will be swift and forceful. We will defend our people with devastating force if necessary.
Our current military mission will be short in time, limited in scope, and focused in its objectives: Get our people and our allies to safety as quickly as possible.
And once we have completed this mission, we will conclude our military withdrawal. We will end America's longest war after 20 long years of bloodshed.
The events we're seeing now are sadly proof that no amount of military force would ever deliver a stable, united, and secure Afghanistan -- as known in history as the 'graveyard of empires.'
What is happening now could just as easily have happened 5 years ago or 15 years in the future. We have to be honest: Our mission in Afghanistan has taken many missteps -- made many missteps over the past two decades.
I'm now the fourth American President to preside over war in Afghanistan -- two Democrats and two Republicans. I will not pass this responsibly on -- responsibility on to a fifth President.
I will not mislead the American people by claiming that just a little more time in Afghanistan will make all the difference. Nor will I shrink from my share of responsibility for where we are today and how we must move forward from here.
I am President of the United States of America, and the buck stops with me.
I am deeply saddened by the facts we now face. But I do not regret my decision to end America's warfighting in Afghanistan and maintain a laser-focus on our counterterrorism missions there and in other parts of the world.
Our mission to degrade the terrorist threat of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and kill Osama bin Laden was a success.
Our decades-long effort to overcome centuries of history and permanently change and remake Afghanistan was not, and I wrote and believed it never could be.
I cannot and I will not ask our troops to fight on endlessly in another -- in another country's civil war, taking casualties, suffering life-shattering injuries, leaving families broken by grief and loss.
This is not in our national security interest. It is not what the American people want. It is not what our troops, who have sacrificed so much over the past two decades, deserve.
I made a commitment to the American people when I ran for President that I would bring America's military involvement in Afghanistan to an end. And while it's been hard and messy -- and yes, far from perfect -- I've honored that commitment.
More importantly, I made a commitment to the brave men and women who serve this nation that I wasn't going to ask them to continue to risk their lives in a military action that should have ended long ago.
Our leaders did that in Vietnam when I got here as a young man. I will not do it in Afghanistan.
I know my decision will be criticized, but I would rather take all that criticism than pass this decision on to another President of the United States -- yet another one -- a fifth one.
Because it's the right one -- it's the right decision for our people. The right one for our brave service members who have risked their lives serving our nation. And it's the right one for America.
So, thank you. May God protect our troops, our diplomats, and all of the brave Americans serving in harm's way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How did the Taliban take over Afghanistan so quickly?
The Taliban's stunning and rapid takeover of Afghanistan was the result not only of their battlefield strength, but also a sustained push to force surrenders and cut deals.
The insurgents mixed threats and lures with propaganda and psychological warfare as they took city after city - some with barely a shot fired - eventually capturing the capital Kabul.
How did this happen? Why didn't the Afghan army put up a fight?
As foreign troops began their final withdrawal in May, Washington and Kabul were confident the Afghan military would put up a strong fight against the Taliban.
With more than 300,000 personnel and multi-billion-dollar equipment more advanced than the Taliban arsenal, Afghan forces were formidable - on paper.
In reality, they were plagued by corruption, poor leadership, lack of training and plummeting morale for years. Desertions were common and US government inspectors had long warned that the force was unsustainable.
Afghan forces put up strong resistance this summer in some areas such as Lashkar Gah in the south, but they now faced the Taliban without regular US air strikes and military support.
Faced with the smaller but highly motivated and cohesive enemy, many soldiers and even entire units simply deserted or surrendered, leaving the insurgents to capture city after city.
How did the Taliban take advantage of low morale?
The seeds for the collapse were sown last year when Washington signed a deal with the insurgents to withdraw its troops completely.
For the Taliban, it was the beginning of their victory after nearly two decades of war. For many demoralised Afghans, it was betrayal and abandonment.
They continued to attack government forces but started to combine those with targeted killings of journalists and rights activists, ramping up an environment of fear.
They also pushed a narrative of inevitable Taliban victory in their propaganda and psychological operations.
Soldiers and local officials were reportedly bombarded with text messages in some areas, urging them to surrender or cooperate with the Taliban to avoid a worse fate.
Many were offered safe passage if they did not put up a fight, while others were reached through tribal and village elders.
What happened to the anti-Taliban warlords and their militias?
With Afghan forces unable to hold off the Taliban advances, many of Afghanistan's famed - and notorious - warlords rallied their militias and promised a black eye to the Taliban if they attacked their cities.
But with confidence plunging in the ability of Afghanistan's government to survive, never mind hold off the insurgents, the writing was also on the wall for the warlords.
Their cities fell without a fight. Warlord Ismail Khan in the western city of Herat was captured by the Taliban as it fell.
Abdul Rashid Dostum and Atta Mohammad Noor in the north fled to Uzbekistan, as their militia members abandoned humvees, weapons and even their uniforms on the road out of Mazar-i-Sharif.
But how were the Taliban able to do this so quickly?
The Taliban had started putting deals and surrender arrangements in place reportedly long before the launch of their blitz in May.
From individual soldiers and low-level government officials to apparently provincial governors and ministers, the insurgents pressed for deals - with the Taliban all but victorious, why put up a fight?
The strategy proved immensely effective.
The images from their final march to Kabul were not of bodies in the streets and bloody battlefields, but of Taliban and government officials sitting comfortably on couches as they formalised the handover of cities and provinces.
According to one reported US estimate less than a month before the fall of Kabul, the Afghan government could collapse in 90 days.
But once the Taliban captured their first provincial capital, it took less than two weeks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State Department says the US could recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government but only if it 'upholds rights, doesn't harbor terrorists, and protects the rights of women and girls'
State Department spokesman Ned Price on Monday was asked about a future Taliban government
He said that the US could potentially recognize them, provided they had an inclusive government that featured women in roles of political leadership
The Taliban ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 and enforced draconian control over its subjects - in particular women
Girls were forbidden from attending school and women were largely confined to the home
The Islamists show no sign of having changed their ideology, and Price did not say whether he believed they would comply with international norms |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ninja9 replied at 17-8-2021 09:12 PM
'After 20 years, I've learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw U.S. forces' ...
Dh mcm mahaiadin bapa perutusan punya panjang dia punya sembang.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300 000 tentera moden cair mcm aiskrim vs 75000 orang2 barbarian yg hanya ada raifal kuno dan rpg kuno... bila ketua negara calibot sbb tgk presiden dunia yg digantung harapan calibut. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
haha.. politician memang terror berckp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Former president George W. Bush and wife Laura express ‘deep sadness and heavy hearts’ over unfolding Afghanistan crisis with ‘thank you’ message to troops who ‘made America proud’
Bush issued the address late on Monday night after a chaotic day in Kabul which saw eight Afghans killed
The former president and his wife said their 'hearts are heavy' for the Afghan people and the Americans and NATO allies who fought in the country
Bush warned last month that Afghan women and girls will 'suffer' under the rule of the 'brutal' Taliban
The former Republican president sent troops to Afghanistan in the fall of 2001
America has spent an estimated $978 billion in Afghanistan - with much of it reserved for arming and training the Afghan military and police
Intelligence sources said that the rout of the Afghan forces was highly predictable and should not have surprised the Biden administration
Former US President George W. Bush said he and former First Lady Laura Bush feel 'deep sadness' over the events unfolding in Afghanistan.
In a statement issued late on Monday night, the former president and his wife said their 'hearts are heavy for both the Afghan people who have suffered so much and for the Americans and NATO allies who have sacrificed so much.'
Bush had criticized the planned withdrawal of US and NATO troops from Afghanistan just last month, warning that civilians would be left to be 'slaughtered' by the 'brutal' Taliban and women and girls would face 'unspeakable harm.'
The former Republican president was responsible for the initial US onslaught against the Taliban when he deployed troops to Afghanistan in 2001 after the September 11 attacks on New York's World Trade Center.
After expressing his condolences, the former president asserted his confidence that the United States Armed Forces (USAF) would be able to carry out an effective evacuation plan of the remaining Americans and Afghan refugees.
Bush and his wife went on to recognize the veterans who had served in Afghanistan, lauding their accomplishments and recognizing the wounds, both visible and invisible, suffered by those who were embroiled in the conflict.
Their statement read 'in times like these, it can be hard to remain optimistic', but echoed the sentiments of Dr. Sakena Yacoobi of the Afghan Institute of Learning who declared 'the Taliban cannot crush a dream.'
The former president and his wife rounded off their statement by offering their support and that of the Bush Center, a complex which houses Bush's presidential library, policy institute and the George W. Bush Foundation.
In an July interview with Deutsche Welle, Bush said: 'It's unbelievable how [the Afghan] society changed from the brutality of the Taliban and how all of a sudden, sadly, I'm afraid Afghan women and girls are going to suffer unspeakable harm.'
'I think about all the interpreters and the people that helped not only US troops, but NATO troops and it seems like they're just going to be left behind to be slaughtered by these very brutal people, and it breaks my heart.'
Bush said in July that the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan was a 'mistake' and warned civilians were being left to be 'slaughtered' by the 'brutal' Taliban in an interview with Deutsche Welle
The Taliban swept into the Afghan capital on Sunday after the Western-backed government collapsed and President Ashraf Ghani fled the country 'to avoid bloodshed', bringing a stunning end to a two-decade effort in which the US and its allies had tried to transform the country.
Almost all major checkpoints in Kabul were under Taliban control even before Bush had issued his statement on Monday evening.
The US Embassy was officially closed and evacuated along with the flag on Sunday evening, with ambassador Ross Wilson and other diplomats relocating to the airport in embarrassing scenes reminiscent of the evacuation of the embassy of Saigon in 1975.
Meanwhile, Taliban officials promised civilians would not be harmed and announced everyone would be allowed to return home from Kabul airport if they decided to stay in the country.
The Taliban previously said westerners would be allowed to leave the country but that Afghans would be barred from departing.
There are thought to be at least 40,000 people who need evacuating from the country - including 30,000 US diplomats, visa holders and Afghans they have promised sanctuary, 4,000 Britons and an unknown number of other westerners including Spanish, French, Germans and Poles.
America is hoping to fly out some 5,000 people per day and the UK 1,200 - though both managed just a few hundred on Monday, meaning the operation is likely to drag on for weeks, if not months.
Politicians in both the US and UK have urged their government to be 'generous' with granting asylum to Afghans who helped in the war effort, but there are fears that thousands will be left behind amid the chaos.
US President Joe Biden, in his address to the nation on Monday, said that he did not regret his decision to withdraw US troops.
'The truth is, this did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated,' he said.
He pointed the finger of blame at Afghan leaders who 'gave up and fled the country' and Afghan forces who 'collapsed, sometimes without trying to fight.'
'We gave them every chance to determine their own future. What we could not provide them was the will to fight for that future,' Biden said.
On July 8, the president said: 'The jury is still out, but the likelihood there's going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely.'
As recently as last week, Biden publicly expressed hope that Afghan forces could develop the will to defend their country.
But privately, administration officials warned that the military was crumbling, prompting Biden on Thursday to order thousands of American troops into the region to speed up evacuation plans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'This was NOT a surprise': Afghan experts condemn Biden administration for claiming they were shocked by the speed of the Taliban's advance
Joe Biden said on Monday that the speed of the Taliban's advance across Afghanistan took them by surprise
The U.S. has spend an estimated $978billion in Afghanistan - with much of it spent on arming and training the Afghan military and police
The Afghan armed forces and police combined numbered around 350,000, versus a Taliban force 80,000-strong
Yet the Afghan forces had frequently not been paid for months, and were enticed by Taliban bribes to quit
Donald Trump in February 2020 signed the Doha Agreement, which would see the US forces withdraw by May 2021 - giving the Taliban time to ready
Intelligence sources said that the rout of the Afghan forces was highly predictable and should not have surprised the Biden administration
President Joe Biden on Monday said that the United States government had been taken by surprise by the speed of the Taliban's capture of Afghanistan - but veteran observers of the country were asking how they could have been shocked.
Biden, in his address to the nation, said that he did not regret his decision to withdraw US troops.
'The truth is, this did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated,' he said.
He pointed the finger of blame at Afghan leaders who 'gave up and fled the country' and Afghan forces who 'collapsed, sometimes without trying to fight.'
'We gave them every chance to determine their own future. What we could not provide them was the will to fight for that future,' Biden said.
On July 8, the president said: 'The jury is still out, but the likelihood there's going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely.'
As recently as last week, Biden publicly expressed hope that Afghan forces could develop the will to defend their country.
But privately, administration officials warned that the military was crumbling, prompting Biden on Thursday to order thousands of American troops into the region to speed up evacuation plans.
The United States has, over the last 20 years, poured $978billion into the country, according to an analysis by Brown University.
The bulk of the money spent in Afghanistan has been on counter-insurgency operations, and on the needs of troops such as food, clothing, medical care, special pay and benefits. Most of American spending on reconstruction has gone to a fund that supports the Afghan Army and police forces - through equipment, training and funding.
Afghanistan's national army and police forces, theoretically numbering 350,000 men - trained and equipped at huge cost by the US and Western allies - were supposed to be a powerful deterrent to the Taliban.
The Taliban, by contrast, only had 80,000 fighting men.
'Given how much we have invested in the Afghan army, it's not ridiculous for analysts to believe that they'd be able to put up a fight for more than a few days,' said Chris Murphy, a Democrat senator for Connecticut and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who has backed the Biden administration's strategy.
'You want to believe that trillions of dollars and 20 years of investment adds up to something, even if it doesn't add up for the ability to defend the country in the long run.'
In the upper ranks of Biden's staff, the rapid collapse in Afghanistan only confirmed the decision to leave: If the meltdown of the Afghan forces would come so quickly after nearly two decades of American presence, another six months or a year or two or more would not have changed anything.
Anthony Blinken, the Secretary of State, said they were taken aback by the strength of the Taliban, and the comparative weakness of the Afghan forces.
'We've seen that that force has been unable to defend the country, and that has happened more quickly than we anticipated,' he told CNN on Sunday.
National security adviser Jake Sullivan said the US was not able to give Afghan forces the 'will' to fight for their country.
'We could not give them the will, and they ultimately decided that they would not fight for Kabul and they would not fight for the country,' he told NBC's Today show on Monday.
'The speed with which cities fell was much greater than anyone anticipated.'
Yet many Afghan experts said that the US administration should have known that the Taliban were poised to rapidly overrun the country.
In February 2020 the Trump administration signed an agreement with the Taliban that called on all US forces and contractors to leave by May 2021.
Yet, given repeated previous promises from US presidents, many did not expect that the Americans would actually leave.
Haneef Atmar, the Afghan foreign minister, told The Wall Street Journal that the February agreement did not give them enough time to focus their energies on protecting strategic assets.
'Politically it was suicide to leave certain regions, and to concentrate on certain others, and that made the Afghan army overstretched and critically dependent on close air support for logistics, medevac and combat operations,' he told The Wall Street Journal.
'We did not have enough transition time to move from that arrangement to a new arrangement, to bring back forces from areas that are difficult to defend and to concentrate on the main population centers.'
Andrew Watkins, senior analyst for Afghanistan at the International Crisis Group, told the paper that the end of American airstrikes - part of Trump's February 2020 deal - gave the Taliban valuable time to fortify their troop numbers.
'The Doha agreement bought the Taliban a one year reprieve,' he said.
'They were able to regroup, plan, strengthen their supply lines, have freedom of movement, without fear of American bombardment.'
Journalist Bill Neely, who was with NBC News before he retired, tweeted that there were multiple reasons - all predictable - for the collapse of momentum of the Afghan forces.
'I covered fall of Taliban in 2001. Cities fell often without a fight,' he said.
'1.Afghans know momentum is with 1 side, not the other & switch. Less bloodletting.
'2.Much of AFSF are just names on paper.
'3..US & allies no longer strongest 'tribe' on battlefield.
'4. People sick of corruption.'
Indeed, one Afghan police officer told The Washington Post: 'Without the United States, there was no fear of being caught for corruption. It brought out the traitors from within our military.'
Many members of the police and army had not been paid for months and, demoralized at the U.S. walking away, felt they had little reason to fight the inevitable.
Retired Army Gen. Douglas E. Lute, who led Afghanistan strategy at the National Security Council for George W. Bush and Barack Obama, told The New York Times on Saturday he was shocked that the Biden administration did not predict the chaos.
'The puzzle for me is the absence of contingency planning: If everyone knew we were headed for the exits, why did we not have a plan over the past two years for making this work?' he said.
Doug London, a former senior CIA officer who ran counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan before he retired in 2018, told NBC News that the intelligence community knew Kabul could fall within weeks if the US withdrew the bulk of its military and intelligence assets.
A Western intelligence official told the site: 'There absolutely was intelligence reporting that it could happen this fast. This was not a surprise.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chilling moment Taliban 'spokesman' calls female BBC News presenter live on air to insist people in Afghanistan were 'safe' and faced 'no revenge'
BBC news anchor Yalda Hakim received call from Taliban spokesman live on air
She put Suhail Shaheen on speakerphone during BBC World show on Sunday
Mr Shaheen told people of Afghanistan that 'their properties, their lives are safe'
He added that the Taliban were the 'servants of the people and of this country'
This is the chilling moment a Taliban leader called up a BBC news presenter live on air and claimed people in Afghanistan were 'safe' and there would be 'no revenge'.
BBC World News anchor Yalda Hakim received the call from the terrorist group's spokesman Suhail Shaheen on her mobile phone during her show on Sunday.
She quickly put the phone next to a guest microphone so viewers could hear Mr Shaheen claim victory as the Taliban recaptured Kabul after 20 years in exile.
He said: 'We assure the people of Afghanistan particularly in the city of Kabul, that their properties, their lives are safe, there will be no revenge on anyone.'
Mr Shaheen described the Taliban as the 'servants of the people and of this country' and said the group's leaders were 'awaiting a peaceful transfer of power'.
Ms Hakim, who joined the BBC in 2012, fled her native Afghanistan as a child before being brought up in Sydney where she went to school then studied journalism.
The extraordinary 30-minute interview, which has been widely shared, began with Ms Hakim saying: 'Mr Shaheen, can you hear me?' Mr Shaheen replied, saying: 'Yes.'
Working out how she was going to get him on air, Ms Haki, said: 'OK, we've just got you on the phone, so we're just going to see if we can put you on speaker. Can our viewers hear that? Can you speak sir, can you just introduce him?'
Mr Shaheen, who is based in Qatar, said: 'Yes, I'm Muhammad Suhail Shaheen, member of the negotiations team of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and spokesman of the Taliban.'
Ms Hakim continued: 'Is that fine? Can our viewers hear that? OK. Mr Shaeen, there is a lot of chaos and confusion in Kabul at the moment. Can you just help us understand what the Taliban plan to do at present, and next?'
And he replied: 'Yes. There should not be any confusion in Kabul, we assure the people of Afghanistan, particularly in the city of Kabul, that their properties, their lives are safe, there will be no revenge on anyone.
'We are the servants of the people and of this country. Our leadership have instructed our forces to remain at the gate of the Kabul, not to enter the city. We are awaiting a peaceful transfer of power.'
Ms Hakim said: 'When you say peaceful transfer of power, what do you mean? What is actually likely to happen?'
And Mr Shaeen said: 'It means that the city and the power should be handed over to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and then in future we will have an Afghan inclusive Islamic Government in which all Afghans will have participation.'
Continuing to press him, Ms Hakim said: 'When you say participation, do you mean one vote, one person? What do you mean by participation'
And Mr Shaheen: 'No, participation means that we will have in the Government other Afghans. They will be part – we will have them in the future Government.'
Ms Hakim asked him: 'But it will all fall under the umbrella of the Government of the Taliban, the Islamic Emirate as you describe it?'
And Mr Shaheen said: 'Yes, there will be, as I said, an Afghan inclusive Islamic government.'
Ms Hakim then asked: 'Will there be a delegation going to Doha tomorrow to speak with Mullah Baradar, as there are a lot of rumours that he has arrived in Kabul, and the current president Ashraf Ghani has handed power over to him?'
But Mr Shaheen replied: 'Mullah Baradar is here in Doha, he has not gone to Kabul, these are just rumours.'
Mr Shaheen also revealed Islamic government under Sharia law was the aim of the resurgent Taliban.
He also refused to rule out the former regime's former brutal repression methods, such as public executions and removal of limbs.
'I can't say right now, that's up to the judges in the courts and the laws,' he said. 'The judges will be appointed according to the law of the future government.'
BC interviews the Taliban: Yalda Hakim talks to Suhail Shaheen
Here is a transcript of the first few minutes of Yalda Hakim's interview with the Taliban's Suhail Shaheen on BBC World News on Sunday:
Yalda Hakim: 'Mr Shaheen, can you hear me?'
Suhail Shaheen: 'Yes.'
YH: 'Er, OK, we've just got you on the phone, so we're just going to see if we can put you on speaker. Can our viewers hear that? Can you speak sir, can you just introduce him?'
SS: 'Yes, I'm Muhammad Suhail Shaheen, member of the negotiations team of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and spokesman of the Taliban.'
YH: 'Is that fine? Can our viewers hear that? OK. Mr Shaeen, there is a lot of chaos and confusion in Kabul at the moment. Can you just help us understand what the Taliban plan to do at present, and next?'
SS: 'Yes. There should not be any confusion in Kabul, we assure the people of Afghanistan, particularly in the city of Kabul, that their properties, their lives are safe, there will be no revenge on anyone. We are the servants of the people and of this country. Our leadership have instructed our forces to remain at the gate of the Kabul, not to enter the city. We are awaiting a peaceful transfer of power.'
YH: 'When you say peaceful transfer of power, what do you mean? What is actually likely to happen?'
SS: 'It means that the city and the power should be handed over to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and then in future we will have an Afghan inclusive Islamic Government in which all Afghans will have participation.'
YH: 'When you say participation, do you mean one vote, one person? What do you mean by participation'
SS: 'No, participation means that we will have in the Government other Afghans. They will be part – we will have them in the future Government.'
YH: 'But it will all fall under the umbrella of the Government of the Taliban, the Islamic Emirate as you describe it?'
SS: 'Yes, there will be, as I said, an Afghan inclusive Islamic government.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Post time 17-8-2021 04:11 PM
Post time 17-8-2021 04:15 PM
