Instead of blaming the yanks for the Taliban atrocities, I would argue that the Durand line of 1893

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

is the real culprit.

It was to mark a line for the respective spheres of influence for British India and Afghanistan (and also a GB-Rus buffer zone.)

This led to the creation of a new Indian state - NWFP.

But the main thing was that GB wanted Quetta as a military base, meaning that the Pashtun lands were split in half, and Baluchistan was severely divided too.

This is where all the problems originally come from, imo. Our desire to hold Quetta as part of the Great Game.

Compared to that, the yanks were just shuffling deck chairs.

[Classic Jorge]

...or promising the holy land to two separate bunches of people, who incidentally hate each other.

I suppose we're to blame for all of the world's problems, are we, hmmm?

[Berni]

Why do they never get the blame?

[PSRB]

[Snin]

:titsup: kids today eh ? :-)

[Berni]

History didn't begin with the British Empire, you know?

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

but 22 countries, I'm sure we've f**ked up a few other places too.

If you wanted to be generous to us, you could also blame the Ruskies for having the audacity to even play the Great Game considering we'd done them in the Crimea and they should have damned well learned their place.

But had we not have insisted on the line so we could keep Quetta - 15 years earlier, during the 2nd Afghan war, the Treaty of Gandamak, 1878, had given us control over their foreign policy and basically made Afghanistan part of the informal empire, so it wasn't that pressing an issue,* - we probably wouldn't have half the **** we now have in Af-Pak.

* yes, the Ruskies had just started the alliance with the French, that might have been tricky, but the Germans wanted us into their sphere, so they failed to renew the reinsurance treaty with Russia in 1890, which meant that we could have had their support if the Ruskies had tried in on with us.

[7evens]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQIBjJ50WzjVlOOAJkJpH_L9lcKLyrC-yVCd1rzd9gb9LcE_sSSbzd07TZs

[Snin]

before that it was peaceful

[Snin]

[Classic Jorge]

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Fr-Rus alliance of the previous year may have been a reason, we already had control of their (Afg) frontier since Tr of Gandamak in 1878 during the 2nd Afghan war.

We also had control of their Foreign policy.

So Afg was already a buffer zone under our influence.

Also, Germany failing to renew the reinsurance treaty in 1890 - which pushed the Ruskies into the French alliance - meant that Germany would no longer have to stay neutral in the event of a Russian war with another great power.

One reason for this was that at this time, Germany still hoped to get GB into an alliance with them.

Therefore, If Rus had used French support to try it on with us, the Germans would have been bang up for another ruck against the French in support of us.

So Quetta was exactly that vital in 1893.

But the decision to nick it has made life **** for natives 100+ years later.

[Snin]

http://www.theawl.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Statler_waldorf-e1310568059677.jpg

Berni is on the left imo

[7evens]

[Berni]

And people die. It doesn't change.

[Classic Jorge]

[the splendor of antigone]

[Berni]

linear pattern of causation. I merely point this out to counter your propensity for suggesting that blame always begins and ends with the actions of the British (occasionally the Americans) - which makes no historical sense whatsoever.

[Pat Vegas]

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

irrelevant given that the Pashtuns and Baluchis are all the same flavour of Mussalman.

The point is that Pashtun and Baluchistan were split in two - across the present day Af-Pak border - simply because we wanted Quetta so we got the Durand line drawn to make sure it was British.

I'm not saying imperial history in this region began with the British Empire in the slightest.

I am saying that the Af-Pak border was drawn by us - Durand - in 1893, that we did it to keep Quetta, and that that border is the main reason behind a lot of the troubles there, including the Talibs.

[the splendor of antigone]

Wait, he gave us free will, didn't he? :rubchin:

[Classic Jorge]

Route one posting, straight from the Charles Reep school

[Snin]

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a239/snowfun/turkey_zpsfaf106cf.png

[Berni]

splenda. :thumbup:

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

drew what is the current day border in 1893, for said reason, and with said consequences for the Pashtun and Baluch peoples.

I don't believe this is our fault cos we seem to get blamed for everything is the sort of logic you normally ridicule when you see these sentiments in reverse in the Guardian.

Surely?

[Berni]

[Berni]

[Classic Jorge]

[the splendor of antigone]

Quote:



For it must be cried out, at a time when some have the audacity to neo-evangelize in the name of the ideal of a liberal democracy that has finally realized itself as the ideal of human history: never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity. Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the capitalist market in the euphoria of the end of history, instead of celebrating the ‘end of ideologies’ and the end of the great emancipatory discourses, let us never neglect this obvious macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the earth

[Berni]

treated a few raggedy-arsed peasants would have major consequences a century or more down the line. We had bigger geopolitical fish to fry - as do all powerful nations. Whoever is in charge and holds the most power can be superficially 'blamed' for the consequences of their actions down the historical line, but in these circumstances there are rarely any actions that wouldn't have negative consequences at some point, so the concept of 'blame' in that sense is utterly meaningless in a wider historical context - which is sort of what I'm trying to point out.

[Wembleygooner- raised in hornsey]

infant psychology makes me sick to my stomach - who really gives a **** mate? who was alive when all that happened? Listen carefully - the world IS actually filled with people that like killing other people. full.stop. so the obvious thing would be to get them before they get us - cos they wouldn't hesitate to put a bullet in your bonce or mine