January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[Brooklyn]

I'm not sure why you persist in telling us that a "majority" of Afghans support the Taliban's takeover (as opposed to the exit of foreigners), when it's pretty clear that simply isn't true. They are the best organized, most committed, military faction in Afghanistan; if they manage to maintain an iron grip on control (the Northern Alliance is already reforming) it will most likely be by brutal force, not any sort of democratic expression of the majority with basic rights for the minorities to ensure civic, non-violent acceptance.

I mean, seriously, that's like saying, if Jan 6 had been successful, because the US military and Cap police had lain down that Trumpism was actually favored by a majority (indeed that would actually be closer to the truth).

That said, the hope is that the Taliban will decide to institute reforms to how they govern versus how they did previously...time will tell.

In a country of 40 million people, in a system that was given $2 trillion of your tax dollars, in a system given nearly $100 billion in weapons and which was used to train hundreds of thousands of troops, in a system that existed for 20 years because it was propped up by foreign invaders and treasonous collaborators --- yet, a system that fell in only one week like a house of playing cards, how can you or anyone else suggest that the Taliban (both its political and military components) did not have majority support?

For years they have been safely harbored in the provinces, untouched, unchallenged, thriving, armed, motivated, and resolved to defeat the foreign enemy and their treasonous collaborators. In 20 years nobody lifted a finger to defeat them there. Nobody.

How then can you say they did not have majority support?

Instead of living in denial, show me some proof, any actual PROOF, that the treasonous puppet regime in Kabul had majority support. Stop denying. Start proving.

[youthathletics]

I'm not sure why you persist in telling us that a "majority" of Afghans support the Taliban's takeover (as opposed to the exit of foreigners), when it's pretty clear that simply isn't true. They are the best organized, most committed, military faction in Afghanistan; if they manage to maintain an iron grip on control (the Northern Alliance is already reforming) it will most likely be by brutal force, not any sort of democratic expression of the majority with basic rights for the minorities to ensure civic, non-violent acceptance.

I mean, seriously, that's like saying, if Jan 6 had been successful, because the US military and Cap police had lain down that Trumpism was actually favored by a majority (indeed that would actually be closer to the truth).

That said, the hope is that the Taliban will decide to institute reforms to how they govern versus how they did previously...time will tell.

In a country of 40 million people, in a system that was given $2 trillion of your tax dollars, in a system given nearly $100 billion in weapons and which was used to train hundreds of thousands of troops, in a system that existed for 20 years because it was propped up by foreign invaders and treasonous collaborators --- yet, a system that fell in only one week like a house of playing cards, how can you or anyone else suggest that the Taliban (both its political and military components) did not have majority support?

For years they have been safely harbored in the provinces, untouched, unchallenged, thriving, armed, motivated, and resolved to defeat the foreign enemy and their treasonous collaborators. In 20 years nobody lifted a finger to defeat them there. Nobody.

How then can you say they did not have majority support?

Instead of living in denial, show me some proof, any actual PROOF, that the treasonous puppet regime in Kabul had majority support. Stop denying. Start proving.

Seems you are the one that needs to prove it, since you are claiming it......your brief explanation is riddled with holes. Keep trying, only this time with links and facts...not innuendo.

[Brooklyn]

^


https://th.bing.com/th?id=OIF.7vkQ%2bF1 ... mgDet&rs=1


As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Dunno about you but these Talibani don't look to me like they are under too much of a threat.

[Farfromgeneva]

I'm not sure why you persist in telling us that a "majority" of Afghans support the Taliban's takeover (as opposed to the exit of foreigners), when it's pretty clear that simply isn't true. They are the best organized, most committed, military faction in Afghanistan; if they manage to maintain an iron grip on control (the Northern Alliance is already reforming) it will most likely be by brutal force, not any sort of democratic expression of the majority with basic rights for the minorities to ensure civic, non-violent acceptance.

I mean, seriously, that's like saying, if Jan 6 had been successful, because the US military and Cap police had lain down that Trumpism was actually favored by a majority (indeed that would actually be closer to the truth).

That said, the hope is that the Taliban will decide to institute reforms to how they govern versus how they did previously...time will tell.

In a country of 40 million people, in a system that was given $2 trillion of your tax dollars, in a system given nearly $100 billion in weapons and which was used to train hundreds of thousands of troops, in a system that existed for 20 years because it was propped up by foreign invaders and treasonous collaborators --- yet, a system that fell in only one week like a house of playing cards, how can you or anyone else suggest that the Taliban (both its political and military components) did not have majority support?

For years they have been safely harbored in the provinces, untouched, unchallenged, thriving, armed, motivated, and resolved to defeat the foreign enemy and their treasonous collaborators. In 20 years nobody lifted a finger to defeat them there. Nobody.

How then can you say they did not have majority support?

Instead of living in denial, show me some proof, any actual PROOF, that the treasonous puppet regime in Kabul had majority support. Stop denying. Start proving.

Not everyone is a provocateur in fight mode 24/7.

Innuendo is all I see here but how did the great Rome burn. There’s always someone bigger, tougher, crazier, smarter, etc.

[Brooklyn]

Innuendo? Nonsense.

I'll wait for that "proof" that, somehow, Taliban came into power without majority support. Perhaps it was the gods (mebbe Allah?) or the possibility of Afghan regular forces having been on vacation as armed "insurgents" conveniently marched in without anyone suffering any casualty or a minor case of athlete's foot at most.

[Farfromgeneva]

Ok then every colonist controlled country in history was the will of the people as well by definition.

[Brooklyn]

In the past Brits used their divide-and-conquer methods in order to colonize. If they had $2 trillion to play with, half the world would still be theirs.

[Farfromgeneva]

In the past Brits used their divide-and-conquer methods in order to colonize. If they had $2 trillion to play with, half the world would still be theirs.

We have p’owned the Brits for a quarter of a Millenium....

[Brooklyn]

Tony Blair saw a big opportunity to make big ₤ by supporting Bush's imperialism in the ME. Cost him his job as PM but it did bring in much profits for his corporate puppet string masters.

[MDlaxfan76]

Brooklyn, IMO you are pretty far out to lunch on this one.

"Treasonous collaborators"

The Taliban have a proven history of being very harsh rulers, controlling territory by terror and abuse. That would not be necessary if they truly had the full "support" of the people.

It's possible, of course, to represent a large sector of "society", whether less or more than a "majority", but if you have to use beheadings and stoning as your means of controlling your population for minor matters, it ain't really the 'will of the people'.

The Taliban are merely the currently most brutal, the most committed, the most organized of the various groups that have warred with one another for centuries.

There are going to be such warring factions after we leave.

You can make a solid argument that we should not have been there, certainly not for 20 years, but this nonsense of the Taliban as being the only Afghan "patriots", whereas those who wanted a system of liberal democracy in which multiple factions could be represented were not Afghan patriots is claptrap.

[Brooklyn]

The Taliban have a proven history of being very harsh rulers, controlling territory by terror and abuse. That would not be necessary if they truly had the full "support" of the people.

Saudi Arabia ring a bell to you? How about George Bush's good friend Islam Karimov? Doubtful they had "full" support from all the people but they did have majority support. Otherwise their governments would have been defeated a long time beforehand.

Over the past 20 years there has been some conflict between the Taliban and those traitors who sided with the puppet regime imposed by Bush and the West. But the Taliban forces won despite all the billions you and others paid for. Why? Obviously the people were on their side.

The term 'treasonous' may seem troubling to you but just imagine if it there had been a successful Soviet invasion and collaborators joined them. You certainly wouldn't call them patriotic. Quite the contrary you would call them traitors. That is, if you were a true patriot which I'm sure you are.

[Farfromgeneva]

Or they were weak and didn’t have it in them to fight a nasty, careless and relentless enemy and we should’ve slashed and burned day one if we were going in rather than pussyfoot around for two decades.

It’s consistent though if one is anti-christianity (I’m basically agnostic myself), heavily historically sided with Palestine 20yrs ago (forget today), paints everyone against positions with a broad brush regularly antagonistic when unprovoked and jumps to conclusions that very intelligent and considerate people filled with empathy can easily make counter arguments against before they have their first cup of coffee. 1980s liberal. Trope fits my mother as well.

[MDlaxfan76]

The Taliban have a proven history of being very harsh rulers, controlling territory by terror and abuse. That would not be necessary if they truly had the full "support" of the people.

Saudi Arabia ring a bell to you? How about George Bush's good friend Islam Karimov? Doubtful they had "full" support from all the people but they did have majority support. Otherwise their governments would have been defeated a long time beforehand.

Over the past 20 years there has been some conflict between the Taliban and those traitors who sided with the puppet regime imposed by Bush and the West. But the Taliban forces won despite all the billions you and others paid for. Why? Obviously the people were on their side.

The term 'treasonous' may seem troubling to you but just imagine if it there had been a successful Soviet invasion and collaborators joined them. You certainly wouldn't call them patriotic. Quite the contrary you would call them traitors. That is, if you were a true patriot which I'm sure you are.

Do I come across as a fan of the Saudi ruling family???

Again, I think you are mixing up "support" with "domination"; these are not the same thing.

[Brooklyn]

Do I come across as a fan of the Saudi ruling family???

Again, I think you are mixing up "support" with "domination"; these are not the same thing.

I await "proof" that the Taliban did not or does not get majority support from the Afghanistani populace.

[old salt]

Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclus ... 021-08-20/

QFP :

https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-finds-scant- ... 00386.html

FBI finds ‘scant’ evidence Capitol riot was centrally organized plot

The FBI has found little evidence that the Capitol riot was a planned and coordinated effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, according to a new report.

The report from Reuters cites “four current and former law enforcement officials” who are allegedly either directly involved in or briefed on the sweeping Capitol riot investigations, and it states that the bureau “has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result.”

The FBI "at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump,” according to the outlet. It also reported that “FBI investigators did find that cells of protesters, including followers of the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys groups, had aimed to break into the Capitol. But they found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside.”

Senior lawmakers have reportedly been briefed in detail of the results of the FBI's investigation.

One source said there has been little to no recent talk at the higher levels of the Justice Department about filing charges in the realm of seditious conspiracy and that racketeering charges have also been decided against. The outlet said “law enforcement sources” told them no charges related to an individual or group playing “a central role in organizing or leading the riot” appear to be pending.

The Justice Department said earlier this month that more than 570 defendants have been arrested in the Capitol riot investigations being led by the U.S. attorney’s office in the District of Columbia and that at least 175 defendants have been charged with “assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees,” including more than 55 defendants charged with “using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.” The DOJ says that approximately 80 Capitol Police officers and 60 Metropolitan Police Department officers were assaulted during the riot.

DEBUNKED CLAIMS OFFICER SICKNICK DIED FROM CAPITOL RIOT INJURIES REEMERGE AT DAY ONE HEARING

Prosecutors said that “at least 240 defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so,” and an estimated 40 defendants have been hit with conspiracy charges related to conspiring to obstruct a congressional proceeding and/or to obstruct or injure an officer. Many of the defendants hit with conspiracy charges have been members of the right-wing Oath Keepers militia-style group or the Proud Boys organization.

A “former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation” told Reuters: “Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases. Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”

An FBI spokesperson told the Washington Examiner that “we have no comment on the ongoing investigation and would refer you to the court documents in the January 6 cases.”

Michael Sherwin, the now-former acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, told 60 Minutes in March that authorities were investigating Trump’s potential criminal liability and that he also believed the evidence existed to file sedition charges against some of those involved in the Capitol riot, both things he had been hinting at since January. No such charges have ever been filed.

Earlier this year, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta criticized the Justice Department in a rare rebuke after DOJ officials speculated in the media about possible sedition charges against members of the Oath Keepers.

The Justice Department has told the courts that it is holding reams of evidence that defendants might deem exculpatory, but that at least some of the evidence has not been provided to defendants due to the massive number of Capitol riot cases. Roughly five dozen Capitol riot defendants are being held in pretrial detention.

Prominent Democrats, including President Joe Biden and those leading the congressional investigation into the riot, continue to suggest that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died as a result of the violence at the Capitol despite the medical examiner’s office in Washington concluding that his “cause of death” was from “acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis," a stroke, and that the “manner of death” was “natural.”

Two protesters had fatal heart attacks during the riot, and another died of a suspected drug overdose. The only person determined to have been killed during the riot was Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran and Trump supporter who was shot by a Capitol Police officer as she attempted to climb through a broken window near the Speaker's Lobby. The officer was not charged.

[kramerica.inc]

Do I come across as a fan of the Saudi ruling family???

Again, I think you are mixing up "support" with "domination"; these are not the same thing.

Please stop quoting the troll. You are shouting into the wind and giving credence to crazy.

The irony is despite his playing of devil’s advocate online, there is no difference between Brookie, George Bush or an opinionated woman in the Taliban’s eyes.

They all meet the same fate if found in Afghanistan.

[cradleandshoot]

Do I come across as a fan of the Saudi ruling family???

Again, I think you are mixing up "support" with "domination"; these are not the same thing.

Please stop quoting the troll. You are shouting into the wind and giving credence to crazy.

The irony is despite his playing of devil’s advocate online, there is no difference between Brookie, George Bush or an opinionated woman in the Taliban’s eyes.

They all meet the same fate if found in Afghanistan.

+1 On this forum management holds some posters to a different standard than others when it comes to who is defined as a troll and who is not. Imagine that.

BTW to my Cornell friend, I have revised my contempt for the FLP aspect of this forum to reserve the right to respond to stupid, brain damaged comments from you folks. Mommy and Daddy sure wasted good money on your education.

[Kismet]

Do I come across as a fan of the Saudi ruling family???

Again, I think you are mixing up "support" with "domination"; these are not the same thing.

Please stop quoting the troll. You are shouting into the wind and giving credence to crazy.

The irony is despite his playing of devil’s advocate online, there is no difference between Brookie, George Bush or an opinionated woman in the Taliban’s eyes.

They all meet the same fate if found in Afghanistan.

+1 On this forum management holds some posters to a different standard than others when it comes to who is defined as a troll and who is not. Imagine that.

I thought you were leaving? This is your 4th post since declaring that.

Apparently you have as much personal credibility as those you are complaining about.

Boo Hoo on you.

[MDlaxfan76]

Do I come across as a fan of the Saudi ruling family???

Again, I think you are mixing up "support" with "domination"; these are not the same thing.

I await "proof" that the Taliban did not or does not get majority support from the Afghanistani populace.

I await "proof" that the Taliban have the support of the majority of Afghans, women and men. Think they'll hold free and fair elections?

[cradleandshoot]

Do I come across as a fan of the Saudi ruling family???

Again, I think you are mixing up "support" with "domination"; these are not the same thing.

Please stop quoting the troll. You are shouting into the wind and giving credence to crazy.

The irony is despite his playing of devil’s advocate online, there is no difference between Brookie, George Bush or an opinionated woman in the Taliban’s eyes.

They all meet the same fate if found in Afghanistan.

+1 On this forum management holds some posters to a different standard than others when it comes to who is defined as a troll and who is not. Imagine that.

I thought you were leaving? This is your 4th post since declaring that.

Apparently you have as much personal credibility as those you are complaining about.

Boo Hoo on you.

Reading comprehension numbnuts. Read my post again and tell me what I clearly stated about reserving my right to reply to stupid comments from stupid liberals.