72 replies to this topic

[Lord Draculea]

Well now, about Dracula (excuse me, I meant Vlad the Impaler)... You might be surprised to find out that many of my co-nationals think of him as a great national hero, but that's partly because of the way history used to be taught during the Communist era, when most of our "good"/famous past rulers were portrayed almost like communist precursors (which was supposed to be a great "honor" for them). I could have never imagined the man's international post-communist career as "Dracula".

Personally, I'm no expert in Vlad Tepes, and I have no intention to feed you with stuff that you can find on Wikipedia yourselves.

I'd only say that, the way I see, he was indeed a rough and bold warrior, expert in guerrilla tactics, who was once able to disseminate panic and produce heavy casualties to an invading Turkish army in a night attack, with just a handful of people on his side (he spoke perfect Turkish). In all odds, he was a just (though cruel) man, who hated injustice and reserved his famous punishment method only for criminals and invaders (not that I'm in approval of his style ). Of course, one could not expect to survive for long by defying the mighty Ottoman Empire like that. Those were the times. And if you guys ever get the chance to go through Transylvania, you should stop by the city of Sighisoara (Vlad's birthplace), it's a beautiful place and region, and it's worth paying a visit to the fortress and the surroundings.  

I'm not sure if I was able to be of much help with this, fact is that Middle Ages history is not exactly my field. Still, should you have more questions, feel free to ask.

[Haflinger]

Vlad the Impaler was one of the nastier warlords in history. It's gruesome, but fascinating, stuff.
 
The link between the CIA and Taliban is well-documented. You can read Selig Harrison's opinion for one example.

 
That's not documented at all, that's some guys opinion.

It's the opinion of a CIA consultant.

Really, Manoka. This is "The Sky is Blue" kind of stuff. The CIA funded the Taliban to help fight against the communists. That's not hard to understand.

 

Vlad wasn't evil in the sense of someone like Hitler. But the business of putting his fallen enemies up on stakes is also well-documented. That's what I meant by gruesome.

 

In his time he was a Romanian national hero, because he was one of the very few lords that won any battles against the invading Turks.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Mounting dead enemies on stakes was pretty common in the Middle Ages.  They used to display the severed heads of executed criminals and enemies at the Tower of London.  Human life simply did not mean as much in a time when death was an ever-present companion.

 

Ceauçescu, now HE was evil.

[Haflinger]

Ah yes. Most of what I know about Nicolae Ceaușescu comes from listening to Gypsy music. Let me tell you, the Rom did not have a high opinion of his regime.

 

I'm not aware of anyone else going around whole battlefields and putting all of the fallen up on stakes. You're right that severed heads of criminals were displayed, but that's different.

[Manoka]

 

Vlad the Impaler was one of the nastier warlords in history. It's gruesome, but fascinating, stuff.
 
The link between the CIA and Taliban is well-documented. You can read Selig Harrison's opinion for one example.

 
That's not documented at all, that's some guys opinion.

It's the opinion of a CIA consultant.

Really, Manoka. This is "The Sky is Blue" kind of stuff. The CIA funded the Taliban to help fight against the communists. That's not hard to understand.

 

Vlad wasn't evil in the sense of someone like Hitler. But the business of putting his fallen enemies up on stakes is also well-documented. That's what I meant by gruesome.

 

In his time he was a Romanian national hero, because he was one of the very few lords that won any battles against the invading Turks.

 

Except it's not, it was a completely different organization; it comes from, an unofficial website, where the guy said training of "Islamist groups", not the Taliban, was a mistake.

 

The Taliban were a completely different organizaiton who refused to work with the groups we trained up, and in fact, a guy was executed for not assassinating Massoud when he had the chance at peace talks. They would have never accepted our help or trained with us, let alone would we have given funds to clearly Pakistani groups.

 

 

The Taliban were largely founded by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in 1994. 

 

The Russians were defeated by at least 1989 in Afghanistan. There's no way it's the same group we trained up to fight off the Russians.
 

Edited by Manoka, 16 August 2013 - 03:14 PM.

[Lord Draculea]

In his time he was a Romanian national hero, because he was one of the very few lords that won any battles against the invading Turks.

In fact, Vlad's cousin, Stephen the Great, Prince of Moldavia (one of today's Romanian provinces), won 46 of the 48 battles he fought against the Ottoman Empire. 

[Haflinger]

Yeah, there's a reason why he gets "the Great."

 

Manoka, are you claiming that sometime after 1989 the Taliban came from somewhere else outside Afghanistan and set up stakes there? Where did they come from?

 

The CIA and ISI were working together in the 80s.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Vlad learned his methods at the Turkish court, where he was a hostage for much of his childhood and youth.  Which also explains why he spoke perfect Turkish.

 

I really like the name Radu the Handsome.

[Manoka]

Yeah, there's a reason why he gets "the Great."

 

Manoka, are you claiming that sometime after 1989 the Taliban came from somewhere else outside Afghanistan and set up stakes there? Where did they come from?

 

The CIA and ISI were working together in the 80s.

 

Pakistan?

 

They wanted to take control over the new Afghanistan governmeant, whom they felt would be easier to eliminate than the previous soviet forces.

 

 

Seriously, the Taliban were established in 1994; this is according to the group itself.

 

In fact they fought groups of U.S. origin and refused to make peace with them, but this was years after the war was over, let alone while it was being fought.

 

 

To this day, the U.S. still works with the ISI.

 

But, "U.S. military officials have increasingly said, they do not notify Pakistani officials before conducting operations against the Afghan Taliban or Al Qaeda, because they fear Pakistani officials may tip them off." In the Osama Bin Laden raid, he was found 0.8 miles (1.3 km) southwest of the Pakistan Military Acadamy. They were not tipped off in this operation in fear of his escape. So yes, we technically work with them, on a failing diplomatic situation. Pakistan has the second largest peacekeeping force in the world, with over 8,216 U.N. peacekeepers, compared to the U.S. at just 82.

 

 

It's really quite insane. While the U.S. has opposed their actions many times, including revealing connections, the United Nations just does not do anything about it.

 

They seem to love Pakistan a lot, so it's a huge diplomatic debacle. I mean we don't even recognize that Pakistan is it's own country, it still has land we consider India and Afghanistan. I wouldn't consider us pals working together or anything really. We're working with Pakistan worse than we work with China on these types of things. The Guantanamo Bay files leak, however, showed that the US authorities unofficially consider the ISI as a terrorist organization equally dangerous as Al Qaeda and Taliban, and many allegations of its supporting terrorist activities have been made.

Edited by Manoka, 16 August 2013 - 08:48 PM.

[Haflinger]

Yes, the CIA and ISI no longer get along. They did work together in the 80s though.

 

The Taliban formed in 1994 from already-existing radical Muslim groups in Afghanistan that had been brought there and funded by the CIA and ISI.

[Manoka]

We didn't get along then, we were just fighting proxy wars instead of fighting each other directly.

 

I doubt most of them were previous afghan fighters. The majority of them were working with Massoud, while the Taliban would simply flat out kill people who worked with Massoud, even their own people.

 

The only reason the many Tribal units of Afghanistan were connected was largely Massoud; they all fought individually, and to retain their individual tribal status. Al Qeada, the Haqqani network, other groups and tribes all wanted to retain their idendity even among the Pakistani side, and they only combined under a couple of leaders on the American side as is.

 

 

The Taliban on the other hand were built from the ground up to be a pro Pakistan force, inside of Pakistan, and Pakistan dissolved it's relations of previous Afghan forces, like Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, since they didn't like the direction they were taking Afghanistan (not under their's or even Muslim control).

Edited by Manoka, 17 August 2013 - 08:39 AM.

[Haflinger]

So, if they weren't previous Muslim fighters, where did they come from? You're still dodging the question.

[Manoka]

Pakistan, I've already told you. O_o

 

Trained up in Pakistan, sent out to take over Afghanistan as a proxy force there's only partial connection to.

 

 

So that Pakistan doesn't have to take direct heat for actions that might take over Afghanistan.

 

Not all Muslims are the same, there are different sub sects and various organizations, some of which hate each other more than they hate other religions.

Edited by Manoka, 17 August 2013 - 10:44 AM.

[Redezra]

So what you're saying is it's a conspiracy by Pakistan to fight the US so that they can... what?

 

Pakistan is far more interested in kicking Indian butt.

[Manoka]

Take over Afghanistan, gain their powersz, extend their power out into Afghanistan.

 

Pakistan isn't a country at the moment; it technically occupies land between India and Afghanistan, and while a nation, it does not technically own any geographical area.

 

 

If they took over Afghansitan, they'd actually gain a foothold on land that would be considered legitimate, and, it would be a very strong power base to both international interactions and to start building forces to potentially take over India.

 

Since India is a lot more powerful than Afghanistan and Afghanistan is more likely to work with Pakistan, they're basically the best bets; after the soviet expulsion, the rule established by the freedom fighters did not coincide with Pakistan's plan.

 

 

So they assassinated the previous people and took over the country, to be expelled during the American invasion.

 

It's pretty much not a secret etheir, but they condemn it internationally so there's no dirt to get them on, although it's clear at least some of the higher members are connected (such as Osama Bin Laden being less than a mile from the Pakistani military training acadamy, equiviliant to the U.S.'s west point).

 

 

They do have actions in India, but, they're typically very minor.

 

From where they stand now, they'd like to take over Afghanistan first before taking over certain areas in India. Although Pakistan has over 180 million people, this is still a far cry from the 1.3 billion of India. Fighting India would be extremely hard. I think they'd settle for the land they currently claim, but if they ever took an official stance on it India would strike; being able to at least defend themselves until the U.N. comes in and, likely, reluctantly gives Pakistan the land to end to the fighting, would mean Pakistan would gain the ground they want. They also want control of bangledash and other terroritories in the region.

Edited by Manoka, 17 August 2013 - 10:58 AM.

[Ellis]

Like what? No, Pakistan has been a country since 1947, after the partition of India. Some of it's territory, e.g. Kashmir, is disputed, but not most of it.

 

Are you confusing Pakistan and Palestine? Because, well, that's the only thing I can think of that makes sense at this point

[Manoka]

Territory is disputed in lands Pakistan doesn't have control over, but still has claims and civilians in and stuff.

 

No wait, Pakistan is a country, but it's not a something else, I don't know the name for it. The point is afghanistan is on their border and taking them over or at least not allowing them to become a Western associated power would give them both political and legitimate power.

Edited by Manoka, 17 August 2013 - 11:20 AM.

[Haflinger]

Pakistan is a country. It's a state. It's a member of the United Nations. If you think that Pakistan, after having worked with the CIA in the 80s to create an Islamic guerilla force in Afghanistan, suddenly decided in 1994 that it wanted to set up a different Islamic guerrilla force in Afghanistan, well... You're being a bit strange.

 

Most countries have some disputed territory. Pakistan has rather a lot, Kashmir being the largest in terms of population.

[Manoka]

They created a new force to take over Afghanistan.

 

Why would they assassinate Massoud and all that if it was the same group?

[Haflinger]

You still haven't explained where this new force came from. You can't just wave your hands and create soldiers out of thin air, you know. Were they Pakistan special forces or something?

 

Massoud died in 2001, two days before the World Trade Center attacks. He was killed by Tunisians, who were probably members of Al Qaeda. It is believed that his death was a bargaining chip bin Laden used to cement the alliance between Al Qaeda and the Taliban.