• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

The UK is finally out of Afghanistan...

The Taliban has effectively out-waited the West. This was their long-term strategy.

I randomly found myself watching CBS in the middle of the night last night & I saw a report on the American withdrawal, which has happened at the same time as the British. So apart from "advisors", there are now no US or British troops fighting in Afghanistan. Whoops, someone's left the light on!

Opium..? mmmmmm yup =D
 
They are out because they are getting ready to go elsewhere, there not gonna be making money if their soldiers are back in the UK
 
^ where might that be I wonder?

the opium graphs show increase in production bin laden is dead blah de blah de blah. poppies all over the place. Imagine the queen n co wading thru the real blood of real soldiers whi have dies fighting her wars. makes me want to vomit. they say it out loud and people don't get the link.

the poppies symbolise BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD. what makes the poppies grow? BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD! how do we feed the poppies? KILL KILL KILL! that's exactly what she is doing when she walks among those ceramic poppies is walking through blood. I wonder if that's what she imagines as she is led round? corpse and limbs and blood and the stench of death?
 
Mental Kenny said:
All I know is since we had a presence there, Afghan hash is cheaper than weed and opium has become widely available, it used to be the rarest thing with acid, now everybody has it, most folks who sell mdma and speed also sell opium, of two types, wet paste and rock hard dried stuff.
Click to expand...
Yeah Afghan hash seems very common in the UK at the moment too. Is lovely narcotic stuff.
 
I don't even know if the fucking Afghan national army exists - apparantly that story about 30,000 of the Iraqi army running away when ISIS came - no-one has a clue how many of them actually did run away because loads of them simply pay a percentage of their pay to the officer and work a second job in their home town.

I can't see the afghan national army doing anything against the Talibananas - but the question is whether Pakistan wants the Taliban to take over the government or just have de facto control and leave the government as a figleaf.
 
Isn't it the other way round? Pakistan intelligence (ISI) and army has defacto control of the taleban, and the pakistan govenrment (and the us and saudi share defacto control of the ISI). [Edit: just reread your post - maybe you meant the afghan government - doh]

The afghan army will effectively be another western-controlled occupation army where the generals have loyalty to the US (who give them their weapons via aid, and invite them for jollies in in the us) and not their country; like the egyptian or pakistani army (and many other recipients of us military 'aid'). The iraqi army's a bit different - they were created as a shi'ite sectarian army i guess so it would end up where we are now with iraq to split up between the different factions and not be a stable secular state again any time soon.

Pretty much the only reason ISIS has the levels of support it has in iraq is due to the shiite army being almost as bad as it for the last decade - running sectarian death squads and torture centres against the sunni population (trained up in this by the experts the US - Petraeus, James Steele and the 'Salvador option') - if the shi'ite authorities hadn't been the cunts they have been, ISIS in iraq would have the usual tiny percentage of muslims supporting them that they do elsewhere (rising higher than this baseline when us bombs/saudi money is chucked at it obviously).
 
Last edited:
Can you really blame the Iraqi Shia for the sectarianism though? After all, it was a western-installed Sunni elite who oppressed them for many years. Most extremist movements (Wahabism included) advocate eradication of the Shia.

I'm not excusing any transgressions on their part, I'm just saying it's wrong to seemingly blame Shi'ite sectarianism without understanding the historical context.
 
I didn't did i? I said america favoured the shia in new iraqi administration, and helped them create death squads - this is well known (sure the shi'ites had plenty of previous greivances to encourage them). i'd suggest it was purposeful so that they caused sectarian problems later on and stopped iraq becoming stable (it's not like they really want to help iran/syria is it) - though it's concievable they were just really stupid. At the same time they were also encouraging sunni sectarians, and some say planting bombs in mosques to kick off the trouble (and the UK's sas had form on dressing up as muslims and planting bombs too); these sunni sectarians and the ex baathist generals later got together under ISIS. It's the usual divide and rule shit.
 
Last edited:
That one post suggested that the growth of ISIL / IS / ISIS in Iraq was solely due to sectarianism on the part of the Shia, rather than something which was completely engineered by the US / NATO. I apologise if I misread it, but several readings yield the same result. I'm glad we agree though - your other posts have been excellent.

Iran could be the key player in this whole mess. Yet nobody but Putin will even entertain them. Pantomime.
 
I was saying the popularity of isis in iraq was because the actions of the shia controlled iraqi government/army against the sunni population - encouraged by the us (and iran to a degree). ISIS came out of alqaeda in iraq/zarqawi - another group that always seemed to plant bombs at the 'right' time for the 'greater good' (ie not for the benefit of shi'ites).
 
Yeah, but to say that without reference to the artificial Sunni hegemony in Iraq is like saying the popularity of the UVF is due to Nationalist / Catholic tyranny. You see what I mean? :)

Anyway. Iran? Beautiful women and that.
 
Well you're right of course, but i don't want to get into an infinite regress ;) - and there wan't really any sort of sectarian/terrorist problem on either side in iraq until after the invasion. There was always going to be backlash against saddam's sunni years (though it was laregely secular); which is why choosing to make a shi'ite only administration seemed a bad idea - if i assume the yanks didn't want to help iran/syria/hezbollah, then the divide and rule 'fuck them all up' motivation seems the most likely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top