International Events VI: Glorious Anarchy and Chaos!

[Hereward]

6 hours ago, Tijgy said:

In the last ten years we had elven + 1 (?)* terror attacks in Belgium 

Fucking elves. Ar Pharazon was right.

[Arakan]

25 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Well, we're all different of course, but if you're more afraid of a random lunatic with a knife than a trained killer with a kalachnikov, I suggest something is wrong with you.

The November 2015 attack in Paris caused 130 victims and over 400 wounded in a single night. One coordinated series of attacks by one cell of an organized group. Many people I know suffered from this attack. My partner's cousin litterally dodged a bullet that night and saw her friends die in front of her for instance.
Now, I'm sorry, there's no way I can say this nicely, but arguing that lunatics with knives are more frightening or constitute an "escalation" compared to organized terror attacks is incredibly dumb.

I don’t give a shit what YOU call dumb. Who the fuck are you to tell me about what I should be afraid? Big coordinated terror attacks are seldom and take a lot of preparation, planning and logistics. For a lone wolf attack it’s enough to go to a hard ware store, buy an axe and cause mayhem. As has happened in a Bavarian province commuter train, for example. Or you just take a kitchen knife and start stabbing random people in a provincial town as has happened. Or you take a few guns and start killing party goers in the pedestrian zone (Vienna).

So, spare me your bullshit „there is no way I can say this nicely“. I was never afraid to be victim of any kind of mass bombing or coordinated attack. Not a single day and night since 911. Those totally random (!) lone wolf attacks out of nowhere, in the middle of nowhere, do frighten me because there is a much higher probability that I fall victim to such kind of attack than to a Paris style attack. And you are fucking nobody to tell me what I should or should not feel afraid of. 

[Heartofice]

I seem to recall somewhere that there was encouragement for these lone wolf knife attacks in Israel because the sheer randomness of them leads to greater levels of fear. 

[Werthead]

Quote

 

In other news, the Afghan embassy in Tajikistan has recognized Amrullah Saleh as the President of Afghanistan. They've furthermore requested that Interpol put out an arrest warrant for Ashraf Ghani for stealing public funds. Which does put other countries in an interesting pickle, especially if more embassies follow suit. How many will recognize the Saleh government as the legitimate state, even though right now it only controls 1/34th of the the country?

Even without providing any direct aid, just releasing the currently frozen Afghan government bank accounts to their control would give an enormous boost.

 

I though that was Tajikistan itself, which would be interesting but wholly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, but just the embassy recognising him is pretty much worthless. Uzbekistan recognising Saleh as political leader and maybe Dostum as a military leader would be more significant, but even they don't seem to be rushing to that conclusion now (and won't as long as Russia is holding dialogue with the Taliban).

I think the position of the major powers, including the USA, Russia, China etc, is that the Ghani government was a busted flush, as is any successor, and they'll wait to see how the dominoes fall before recognising the Taliban (China will probably jump first, Russia a bit later and the USA maybe a lot later).

21 hours ago, DMC said:

I know I'm way way behind on this, and it doesn't matter after...60 hours, but I'm sorry fuck off with this statement.  I DID give a source and you gave nothing but your own obviously catered list.  That's why it's called selection bias.  And the reason I can't give you sources is precisely because no one in the academic community supports your assertion.  And if they do, they can't get it published, which should tell you something.

You provided no source whatsoever, retreated faster than the Afghan army when challenged and now have nothing to offer but personal insults and ad hominems. I have rarely seen a more embarrassing display in sixteen years on the board ("I could produce evidence but the academic community says I'm not allowed to reveal their secret, never-published files, or something").

Just a good reminder for everyone that when you go into a discussion saying very silly things not supported by a single atom of evidence, doubling down is very much not the way to go. You claim to have sources, produce them. If you don't have sources, don't keep pretending you do and saying, "I am right but can't prove it waaaagh stop contradicting me."

[Fez]

7 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I though that was Tajikistan itself, which would be interesting but wholly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, but just the embassy recognising him is pretty much worthless. Uzbekistan recognising Saleh as political leader and maybe Dostum as a military leader would be more significant, but even they don't seem to be rushing to that conclusion now (and won't as long as Russia is holding dialogue with the Taliban).

I think the position of the major powers, including the USA, Russia, China etc, is that the Ghani government was a busted flush, as is any successor, and they'll wait to see how the dominoes fall before recognising the Taliban (China will probably jump first, Russia a bit later and the USA maybe a lot later).

It kinda sounds like right now the Saleh forces are trying to seize Bagram. If they can manage that, it would cut off the Taliban from most of the North (and supposedly they didn't leave much in the way of garrisons behind anywhere in their push last week) and set them up to control about as much territory as the Northern Alliance did in August 2001. And if they do get that much land, things could end up in a RoC/PRC situation where different countries recognize different entities as "Afghanistan". Which is important in terms of accessing the overseas Afghan government bank accounts. Lotta question marks though as to how much support Saleh actually has.

I think their biggest hope is for India to support them, as a way to counter Pakistan. It certainly seems online like there's a bunch of Indian journalist and commentators who are hoping for that. But I've no idea how representative that is, nor to what extent Indian would be capable of supporting them. Plus they'd absolutely need Tajikistan on board to allow for any logistical aid.

[Werthead]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

It kinda sounds like right now the Saleh forces are trying to seize Bagram. If they can manage that, it would cut off the Taliban from most of the North (and supposedly they didn't leave much in the way of garrisons behind anywhere in their push last week) and set them up to control about as much territory as the Northern Alliance did in August 2001. And if they do get that much land, things could end up in a RoC/PRC situation where different countries recognize different entities as "Afghanistan". Which is important in terms of accessing the overseas Afghan government bank accounts. Lotta question marks though as to how much support Saleh actually has.

I think their biggest hope is for India to support them, as a way to counter Pakistan. It certainly seems online like there's a bunch of Indian journalist and commentators who are hoping for that. But I've no idea how representative that is, nor to what extent Indian would be capable of supporting them. Plus they'd absolutely need Tajikistan on board to allow for any logistical aid.

Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (or at least very large factions thereof) are sympathetic to the anti-Taliban front (how long before that's the official name of the Northern Alliance 2.0? Assuming it isn't strangled in its cradle) but they're also very, very much in Russia's pocket, and won't yawn unless Putin tells them it's okay to do so.

However, I don't rule out Putin keeping a foot in both camps, adopting a wait-and-attitude, making nice noises through the Russian embassy in Kabul to the Taliban whilst also keeping Dostum in reserve and keeping an eye on how Saleh does, maybe making friendly-neutral noises if he gets somewhere and not shedding a single tear if he ends up dead or forced to flee.

India will look at counterbalancing Pakistan - especially if the Taliban play nice with China, putting a lot of unfriendly powers around their far northern borders -  but probably not to the extent of getting involved in any meaningful way in Afghanistan.

You raise an excellent point that the Taliban advanced so far and so hard that they haven't really left any forces behind them, taking it on trust that allies - effectively just the people they've been fighting for years saying fine, whatever, let's work together to bring stability to the country - will keep provinces under control. The Taliban are projecting an image of strength that is impressive at the moment, but fragmentation is still possible (though I'd say less likely because of the sheer apathy and tiredness the country has towards further conflict right now).

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Arakan said:

https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/DE/themen/islamismus-und-islamistischer-terrorismus/zahlen-und-fakten/zahlen-und-fakten_node.html#doc678982bodyText4

https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/downloads/DE/veroeffentlichungen/2021/05/pmk-2020-uebersicht-hasskriminalitaet-entwicklung-fallzahlen.pdf;jsessionid=44783E5C1AA5660A2E9024A644F02611.1_cid295?__blob=publicationFile&v=2

 

In fact there was no Islamic terror in Germany of any relevance before 2015. 

Thanks for the link.  The first one was particularly interesting.  However, the increase emphasized is in "Islamist personal potential."  This is not what I was discussing.  For further explanation I refer to to Ripp's post.

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

You provided no source whatsoever, retreated faster than the Afghan army when challenged and now have nothing to offer but personal insults and ad hominems. I have rarely seen a more embarrassing display in sixteen years on the board ("I could produce evidence but the academic community says I'm not allowed to reveal their secret, never-published files, or something").

 

On 8/14/2021 at 3:59 PM, DMC said:

Similar minds.  I was just looking at this:

 

So..the World in Data site is not a source, or somehow I didn't provide it?  And I'm not saying "I could produce evidence" in the slightest.  I'm saying there IS no evidence in the academic community of your assertion, which I'd think should be an obvious indication that the academic community does not support your assertions.  I suggest you take your own advice about not doubling down when saying silly things without any semblance of support - and especially ludicrously and easily verifiably wrong things like "you provided no source whatsoever."

[TheLastWolf]

7 hours ago, Fez said:

think their biggest hope is for India to support them, as a way to counter Pakistan. It certainly seems online like there's a bunch of Indian journalist and commentators who are hoping for that. But I've no idea how representative that is, nor to what extent Indian would be capable of supporting them

 

6 hours ago, Werthead said:

India will look at counterbalancing Pakistan - especially if the Taliban play nice with China, putting a lot of unfriendly powers around their far northern borders -  but probably not to the extent of getting involved in any meaningful way in Afghanistan

Would Taliban Afghanistan make any difference to the troubled borders of India, with the current zealot regime that would openly prefer Ghani back...(not for humanitarian reasons though)

[Werthead]

20 hours ago, DMC said:

So..the World in Data site is not a source, or somehow I didn't provide it?  And I'm not saying "I could produce evidence" in the slightest.  I'm saying there IS no evidence in the academic community of your assertion, which I'd think should be an obvious indication that the academic community does not support your assertions.  I suggest you take your own advice about not doubling down when saying silly things without any semblance of support - and especially ludicrously and easily verifiably wrong things like "you provided no source whatsoever."

Dude, it's simple. You claimed there were waaaay more Islamic terorr attacks in the West in the 2000s, despite this blatantly not being the case. Name them, or just don't and stop trying to argue the point by moving the goalposts every three seconds.

Quote

Would Taliban Afghanistan make any difference to the troubled borders of India, with the current zealot regime that would openly prefer Ghani back...(not for humanitarian reasons though)

India I imagine is not in love with the idea of three semi-hostile powers crowding its far northern borders. However, with Pakistan and any potential Afghan allies checked by MAD or India's superior military, the Taliban reportedly not interested in taking external action against other countries and India's security theoretically guaranteed by the USA and other allies, I don't think it's a situation that will be causing India too much lost sleep. It might make India consider dusting off the old proposals for a more formal NATO relationship and a joint missile defence programme, though the US's enthusiasm for those things seems to have also waned in recent years. The West forging closer relationships with India as a bulwark against China in the region is certainly a reasonable move (though NATO will be wary of being dragged into an India-Pakistan or India-China stand-off without a critically good reason).

[SeanF]

I guess no one will be surprised to learn that (according to the BBC and UN) the Taliban are conducting a "well-organised man-hunt" currently.

Well done, President Biden.

[Fez]

25 minutes ago, Werthead said:

India I imagine is not in love with the idea of three semi-hostile powers crowding its far northern borders. However, with Pakistan and any potential Afghan allies checked by MAD or India's superior military, the Taliban reportedly not interested in taking external action against other countries and India's security theoretically guaranteed by the USA and other allies, I don't think it's a situation that will be causing India too much lost sleep. It might make India consider dusting off the old proposals for a more formal NATO relationship and a joint missile defence programme, though the US's enthusiasm for those things seems to have also waned in recent years. The West forging closer relationships with India as a bulwark against China in the region is certainly a reasonable move (though NATO will be wary of being dragged into an India-Pakistan or India-China stand-off without a critically good reason).

Also, it's important to remember that the Taliban aren't just religious extremists, they're also an enormous drug cartel. The sale of opium and heroin has been their main source of funding for decades, and Afghanistan is the source of between 80% and 90% of the world's heroin each year. Supposedly the Taliban has been getting more into methamphetamine production in recent years too, due to the higher profit margin potential.

And India has a large and growing substance use problem, especially in the Punjab state; which happens to be one of the closest to Afghanistan. This isn't to say that India should pull a "US in Colombia"-style war on drugs; and Afghan farmers will grow enormous amounts of poppy no matter who is in control. But India certainly might prefer a government that at least tries to restrict the flow of drugs into its country, rather than a government that actively encourages it.

[DMC]

25 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Dude, it's simple. You claimed there were waaaay more Islamic terorr attacks in the West in the 2000s, despite this blatantly not being the case. Name them, or just don't and stop trying to argue the point by moving the goalposts every three seconds.

No, I didn't!  Not even close.  The original point of contention was me saying this:

On 8/14/2021 at 2:48 PM, DMC said:

This is fear-mongering on a rather dangerous scale.  The US pulling back over the past decade - with Syria, with Iraq, with the response to the Arab Spring - has not resulted in catastrophic terrorism towards the west.  These are complicated questions where there is no "right" answer, but there's of course just as much potential increased US presence emboldens terrorist elements as decreased presence does.

"Not resulting in catastrophic terrorism towards the west" is quite obviously not saying "there were waaaay more Islamic terror atttacks in the West in the 2000s."  Then you said:

On 8/14/2021 at 4:45 PM, Werthead said:

Whilst the total number of casualties in the 2010s did not reach the number of the 2000s because of the (hopefully) singular body count of 9/11, the number of individual terror incidents and attacks in the West in the 2010s was very clearly a lot higher.

To which I replied:

On 8/14/2021 at 5:08 PM, DMC said:

This is purely anecdotal and has nothing to do with what I was talking about - scholarly, i.e. peer reviewed, research.  I'm friends/colleagues with people who do this for a living and their research says your implicit assertion here is not supported by the data.  Nobody serious in the field would ever claim there's a causal inference between the US relaxing its influence in the Middle East and increasing Islamic-terrorist attacks upon the west.

YOU were the one who changed the goalposts here - first by changing focusing on only attacks and not casualties for some reason, second by posing as if my point was about some pure accounting comparison between the two rather than the point that terrorism has not become some epidemic in the west over the past decade (which is rather manifest for anyone not living under a rock) , and third - and most importantly - by eliding the fact there's still no reliable causal inference between the US pulling out of the places I mentioned and the attacks you mentioned.

But go ahead, keep on accusing me of logical fallacies you yourself are committing.