On 9/21/01, Afghan senior clerics recommended to the Afghan Taliban government under Mohammed Omar, that they should tell UBL to leave Afghanistan for his role in planning 9/11.
They offered condolences, too, for the victims of 9/11.
The Taliban government ignored the advice and played dumb, beating around the bush and refusing to hand UBL over immediately to the US.
The rest, as the saying goes, is history.
This is the first time I’m learning about this.
I think contrition and a handover of UBL by the Taliban, if they had chosen to give it, would still not have been enough to satisfy America’s desire for revenge.
That’s why American invaded and bombed not just one (Afghanistan), but two Muslims countries (+Iraq).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
She’s replying to a news story about China, but honestly, I hope you can see why the US spent so much time promoting women’s rights and new gender identities to Afghans: there is a huge Western elite constituency that demands the normalization of these New Age type ideologies.
She seems to be saying that Xi Jinping should be a Western liberal and encourage the boy to instead wear dresses and be a girl. And the girl should be lesbian.
I was a strong supporter of gay rights and marriage beginning all the way back in the early/mid 2000’s when it was somewhat unpopular to do so, but honestly, the sanctification of non-trad life by the New Age Western world is so cringe.
This goes to my point the other day about how PRC diplomats understand US foreign policy better than USG officials themselves, who stutter and babble when asked to explain a specific policy, especially as it relates to TW.
The fact that OP and the commentators in the comments and retweets are taking this seriously just shows you how little even Americans understand their own nation's political processes and dynamics.
No wonder they get surprised so often.
The USG just clarified. I was right.
I should honestly charge for my sage analysis. A one man political consultancy.
By @nise_yoshimi. What a 🔥 summary of modern Anglo capitalism.
So much of the US' modern politics and problems, both domestic and foreign, are downstream of its reliance on finance and immigration to fuel the capitalist beast at home, and dominate and subvert the world abroad.
I think there is a direct line the from post-1965 INA to modern US identity controversies (eg wokeness).
The US was almost 90% white as late as the ‘70s, with blacks as the US’ literal only minority.
Non-Western migrants were essentially non-existent until 1965, small sprinklings of say, Mexicans or Japanese aside.
And the US essentially had no large scale inward immigration for large parts of its history like 1925-1965.
Now that I think about it, I think Bill Bishop’s Sinocism newsletter has done real damage towards the goal of understanding China in the Xi era.
Telling everyone that he was a hardcore communist misled people to thinking he was an actual economic communist.
Moreover, the constant re-statements of ‘totalitarian Xi, liberal Hu’ dichotomy do not track with reality on the ground, public sentiment, or socioeconomic indicators, which are better now in the Xi era due to additional economic growth over the Hu era.
In short, I think he overemphasized what a break the Xi era has been from its predecessors.
Just a reminder to not take someone at face value just because they have a distinguished brand.