M.Dancer Posted November 22, 2010 Report Share Posted November 22, 2010 Even if it was a civil war, why should anyone else get involved? Because one of the belligerents was giving aid and succor to our enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 22, 2010 Report Share Posted November 22, 2010 nice myth, they may have some volunteers but they're primarily Pushtun Meaning what exactly ? because they are pushtun they are local Afghanis, wrong, and wrong again, Large chunks of Pakistan are of Pushtun orgin, Your example would be like comparing Americans and Canadians, and saying they are all white anglo,christians....And yet we are two very different people... My link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 22, 2010 Report Share Posted November 22, 2010 Because one of the belligerents was giving aid and succor to our enemy. You mean the enemy the US/West created? Have we forgot history already? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 22, 2010 Report Share Posted November 22, 2010 You mean the enemy the US/West created? Have we forgot history already? No one is forgetting history....some have yet to learn it and substitute tinfoil in it's place. That the US created Al Qaeda is pure and simple, tinfoil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted November 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2010 You mean the enemy the US/West created? Have we forgot history already? The US/West didn't create al-Qaeda & their ilk or their twisted ideology. Though yes the US/West certainly gave them some reasons to go to war with them. If you want to blame outsiders, the USSR and Saudi Arabia is just as culpable for nourishing the establishment of the enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 22, 2010 Report Share Posted November 22, 2010 I don't even suggest that the Germans or French would ever do anything which could involve such casualties. Tell that to the families of the 44 Germans and 50 French troops who have died. Your right-wing propoganda is idiotic. Mocking our allies who have been killed in action is so classy.... rah-rah Canada.... we're winning the death-toll competition!! That makes us better.... how??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 22, 2010 Report Share Posted November 22, 2010 Tell that to the families of the 44 Germans and 50 French troops who have died. Your right-wing propoganda is idiotic. Mocking our allies who have been killed in action is so classy.... rah-rah Canada.... we're winning the death-toll competition!! That makes us better.... how??? 1) He hasn't mocked anyone 2) Are you suggesting then there is the politcal will to endure over 100 casualties in an offensive? That kind of will I believe is not evident in any of the coalition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 22, 2010 Report Share Posted November 22, 2010 1) He hasn't mocked anyone Of course he did... read his post where he suggests that the French and Germans are, essentially, cowardly. Nearly 100 are dead in Afghanistan. How are those troops' families any different than Canadians? How are those French and German soldiers any different than the 153 (if memory is correct) Canadian soldiers who died? Do casualties equate to the worthiness of a country? If so, we are worth less compared to all the Americans who died in much greater numbers than us. 2) Are you suggesting then there is the politcal will to endure over 100 casualties in an offensive? That kind of will I believe is not evident in any of the coalition. My post didn't address that question. I responded to Argus' mockery of the French and German dead soldiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 22, 2010 Report Share Posted November 22, 2010 My post didn't address that question. I responded to Argus' mockery of the French and German dead soldiers. You quote half his question. \ I don't even suggest that the Germans or French would ever do anything which could involve such casualties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 Meaning what exactly ? because they are pushtun they are local Afghanis, wrong, and wrong again, Large chunks of Pakistan are of Pushtun orgin, Your example would be like comparing Americans and Canadians, and saying they are all white anglo,christians....And yet we are two very different people... My link the pakistan afghanistan border is an artifical one determined by british imperialism dividing the pushtun tribal lands in two...this is the legacy imperialism that causes problems in many regions, imperial powers dividing land by their own spheres of control rather than local tribal/ethnic occupation...and your link verifies my point very few outsiders are involved, the majority are pashtuns... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 The US/West didn't create al-Qaeda & their ilk or their twisted ideology. Though yes the US/West certainly gave them some reasons to go to war with them. If you want to blame outsiders, the USSR and Saudi Arabia is just as culpable for nourishing the establishment of the enemy. the US funded and equiped the mujahideen, the same people who formed AQ-osama...it seemed like a good idea at the time as the mujahideen were focused on the russians, once the russian were run out of afghanistan the next target became the USA and it's 51st state Israel... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 The US/West didn't create al-Qaeda & their ilk or their twisted ideology. Though yes the US/West certainly gave them some reasons to go to war with them. If you want to blame outsiders, the USSR and Saudi Arabia is just as culpable for nourishing the establishment of the enemy. Who also just happen to be allies, our ilk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 You've got to start somewhere and this is a helluva lot better than the Taliban. Perhaps not as much better as we might hope: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20101122/afghan-converts-trial-delayed-faces-possible-death-penalty/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 i can no longer use my maple leaf flag on my backpack to travel, as the citizen of a peaceful and the loving country. neither can the americans. what's left? ireland? my irish accent sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 (edited) i can no longer use my maple leaf flag on my backpack to travel, as the citizen of a peaceful and the loving country. neither can the americans. what's left? ireland? my irish accent sucks. Perhaps the flag of the peace loving people of your favourite non-state, Palestine? Your Arabic accent may suck but your excellent mastery of Arab propaganda will more than make up for any such shortcomings. Edited November 23, 2010 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 i can no longer use my maple leaf flag on my backpack to travel, ...... I find Maple Leaves as modes of tranport to be somewhat useless. I prefer trains but planes and automobiles get you there faster. Maybe you might try oak leaves....or this tree in particular Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 the US funded and equiped the mujahideen, the same people who formed AQ-osama... True, the US funded the Nujihadeen...also true the Mujihadeen formed the Northern Allaince...Al Qaeda was not formed be Afghanis...so no, by extension the US did not form Al Qaeda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 (edited) No one is forgetting history....some have yet to learn it and substitute tinfoil in it's place. That the US created Al Qaeda is pure and simple, tinfoil. The US might not have,but the CIA certainly did support Al Quaeda(and other similar groups) to assist in the resistance to the Soviet invasion... The term we are looking for is "blowback"... Edited November 23, 2010 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 The US/West didn't create al-Qaeda & their ilk or their twisted ideology. Though yes the US/West certainly gave them some reasons to go to war with them. If you want to blame outsiders, the USSR and Saudi Arabia is just as culpable for nourishing the establishment of the enemy. The final nation in your assertion is the corect one,and should have been dealt with harshly after 9/11... Afghanistan is the proxy war away from the epicentre of the Islamofascist problem... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 The US might not have,but the CIA certainly did support Al Quaeda(and other similar groups) to assist in the resistance to the Soviet invasion... Al Qaeda was formed in 1988-89...as the Soviets were exiting Afghanistan. So no, the US or the CIA did not support AQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 Perhaps the flag of the peace loving people of your favourite non-state, Palestine? Your Arabic accent may suck but your excellent mastery of Arab propaganda will more than make up for any such shortcomings. At least try to stay on topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 (edited) Al Qaeda was formed in 1988-89...as the Soviets were exiting Afghanistan. So no, the US or the CIA did not support AQ I don't think you have been paying attention. Oh and Anwar Al-Awlaki did not dine at the Pentagon a few months after 9/11. You know the US born radical muslim cleric guy behind the Underwear Bomber, the Fort Hood shootings, the Yemeni printer cartridge bombing attempts. Not to mention the two other suspects in the printer cartridge attempts had already spent time in GITMO but released BACK to Yemen. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/ Anwar Al-Awlaki may be the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, but he was also a lunch guest of military brass at the Pentagon within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Fox News has learned. Documents exclusively obtained by Fox News, including an FBI interview conducted after the Fort Hood shooting in November 2009, state that Awlaki was taken to the Pentagon as part of the military’s outreach to the Muslim community in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. --- The Pentagon has offered no explanation of how a man, now on the CIA kills or capture list, ended up at a special lunch for Muslim outreach. Wake up. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11666272 Al-Qaeda bombmaker?Jabr al-Faifi is reportedly one of several former detainees at the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who were returned to Saudi Arabia for rehabilitation in December 2006. After leaving Guantanamo he went through a rehabilitation programme in Saudi Arabia and then rejoined al-Qaeda in Yemen before turning himself in to Saudi authorities, AFP news agency reports. He contacted Saudi government officials saying he wanted to return home and a handover was arranged through Yemen's government, interior ministry spokesman General Mansour al-Turki said. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39957524/ns/us_news-security At the same time, some U.S. officials were casting doubt on the role that a former Guantanamo detainee may have played in tipping off Saudi authorities to the plot. According to some widely circulated reports, Jaber al-Faifi, had provided the crucial intelligence about the existence of explosives concealed in the cargo aboard planes that were intercepted last week in Dubai and the United Kingdom. But U.S. officials now say it is unlikely that he was in a position to have specific information about the details and timing of the plot.The former detainee, Jaber al-Faifi, was released from Guantanamo in early 2007, then graduated from a Saudi "rehabilitation" program — only to flee to Yemen and rejoin with AQAP. But in early September, al-Faifi is supposed to have contacted Saudi authorities saying he wanted to turn himself in. AQAP publicly announced that al-Faifi had been "captured" by the Saudis as early as Sept. 3, according to Gregory Johnsen, an analyst with Princeton University who is one of the leading authorities on AQAP. Edited November 23, 2010 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 I don't think you have been paying attention. I have been paying attention but you seem to get distracted. What does this fellow have to do with the claim that the US funded/created AQ? Nothing.... Do try not to get so distracted... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 I have been paying attention but you seem to get distracted. What does this fellow have to do with the claim that the US funded/created AQ? Nothing.... Do try not to get so distracted... So him having dinner at the Pentagon with US officials does not strike you as questionable? I think you are the one who has been distracted and deceived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 the pakistan afghanistan border is an artifical one determined by british imperialism dividing the pushtun tribal lands in two...this is the legacy imperialism that causes problems in many regions, imperial powers dividing land by their own spheres of control rather than local tribal/ethnic occupation...and your link verifies my point very few outsiders are involved, the majority are pashtuns... No it's not an articical one but one recongized by the UN and the rest of the inter national community....Sorry try again...We have this same problem here in Canada with Native americans, and yet nobody has said the US/Canada border is an artifical one.... And my link proves that the Pushtuns you are reffing to are indeed from Pakistan not Afghan therefore are not locals but rather from a diffent nation....You can't remove borders that you don't like or agree with, it takes more than that i'm afraid....if it was that easy NATO would have already taken over that portion of Pakistan long ago. removing the Taliban threat completely...and yet they were stopped by that British imperial border.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.