Moonbox Posted September 16, 2012 Report Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) you're making a point of constant warfare and turmoil and lack of national identity which is bs...empire's provide long periods of enforced peace even though it comes with forced subjugation, Pax Romana, pax Britannica, or pax anything ottoman, mongol whatever...the ottoman supplied 400 years of calm far more the the europeans ever experienced in the last 500 years... Long term imperialism completely rewrites the landscape. Ever heard of the Dark Ages? When the Western Roman Empire collapsed, it wasn't as if Britain all of the sudden united and said, "Sweet! Now we're all Britons and we'll run our own show." Instead, the area fell apart into bands of feuding warlords and so-called kings that didn't get resolved for hundreds of years. and being part of an empire does not erase nationalistic identity, the armenians, kurds, arabs, Bedouins, Palestinians, Berbers, Egyptians never lost their identity and revolted at the first opportunity, 400 yrs of continuous turkish occupation never erased their nationalism...several hundred years of a similar occupation by Britain never erased the nationalism of their colonized states... I'm not sure you understand what nationalism means, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up the Bedouins or the Berbers. Even so, you're still not getting it. Let's take India, for example. Prior to British rule, there wasn't an "India". There was a subcontinent of different kingdoms, principalities and empires, and no notion of "Indian" nationalism. The British took over the subcontinent they called India and ran the show for 150 years, after which they relinquished control. The transition was a mess, something like 12 million people died, Pakistan and "India' were separated, and India to this day remains a mess of different ethnic groups that don't get along and barely functions as a state. Minorities are brutally suppressed and armed gangs of thugs (semi-official militia) keep dissenters in line. The partition of India is no different than the partition of the Middle East. It was handled extremely poorly and the poorly drawn borders have only been maintained by force and, hate to say it, cultural genocide. I have from a good medieval historian who lives with me that military numbers were vastly exaggerated by chroniclers of the day to justify their defeats or exaggerate the victories...the enemy was always a vast multitude and the home side victor had but a few... and historians today adjust for that in today's literature and generally have accounts from both sides. If you read any of this stuff you'll find there's always a high and a low estimate. I'm not sure what this proves, however, because this would be true for both Europe and the Middle East, so this doesn't change the fact that European conflict was generally on a much smaller scale. By the way, where do you find these people? You live with a medieval historian, your brother in law is a military tech genius or whatever...next time we argue your wife is going to be a Fortune 500 economist or something! na you claimed germans all spoke the same language and were the same nationality, they didn't...the german languages didn't homogenize they went extinct... I really didn't, but nice try. You mentioned 19th century Germany and I brought up Prussia and Wallacia (Wallacia was totally wrong but w/e). If I wasn't responding about 19th century Germany I wouldn't have brought up Prussia. Doh! Edited September 16, 2012 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
bleeding heart Posted September 16, 2012 Report Posted September 16, 2012 They never made any such threat so don't worry about it. No, of course they didn't. Assange hacked into the computers of the Foreign Office and put the words in their mouths. Similarly, Great Britain never refused to extradite Thatcher's good friend Pinochet. Some Latin American Marxist must have made that up. The Brits are too civilized to do anything...untoward. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bleeding heart Posted September 16, 2012 Report Posted September 16, 2012 Do you have any damn clue what the foreign intelligence services of any nation really does? Undermining other states is part of the job. Yes...and when Canadian or American political leaders officially denounce them, Argus will then know whom he's to criticize. As it stands now, he's informed me that US support for terrorism is an awful "mistake." Unlike the Iranian enemies, whose identical (actually, lesser) behaviour is decidedly "on purpose." Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bleeding heart Posted September 16, 2012 Report Posted September 16, 2012 Its scary that you would make that kind of statement because it shows the degree to which people make assumptions. I mean here you are bolding proclaiming with absolutely certainty that Iran is either building nuclear weapons or material to sell for building nuclear weapons. The problem is theres absolutely no evidence to support this. In fact... Its hard to find anyone at all that is actually privvy to real information and intelligence that believes Iran has a nuclear program. Leon Panetta, US Secretary of Defense... US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, head of the Israeli military (IDF) Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak There we have the Secretary of Defense, the head of the Israeli IDF, the Israeli Defense MInister, and the US Directory of national intelligence, all stating in no uncertain terms that the not only does the intelligence available NOT show that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but it makes it pretty clear that at present they do not. Phone those guys up WildBill, because you obviously know something they dont! Armchair hawks on MLW know better! "OF COURSE THEY ARE BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS!" They proclaim. "ITS A KNOWN FACT!". But its not! Im sorry its just not. ALmost nobody will access to real intelligence believes Iran has a nuclear weapons program. But nobody freaking cares! The rhetoric will continue facts be damned. And sadly the only conclusion I is that the people beating this drum simply dont care if Iran is a threat or not. They just wanna see Iran get bombed, because "they think Iranians are dicks" Well done, Dre. Obviously, those most convinced by the inevitable Iranian threat are more attuned to Rush Limbaugh than to official Western intelligence assessments and official pronouncements. Tha latter being uttered a bunch of "kumbayah" lefty peaceniks, after all. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bleeding heart Posted September 16, 2012 Report Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) .... Edited September 16, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bleeding heart Posted September 16, 2012 Report Posted September 16, 2012 Sounds like Iran, sticking their greedy noses in the business of other countries. Actually openly arming and funding terrorist groups in other countries. Groups that are meant to destabilize the very countries their operating in. But they get a pass from you and your ilk. It's certainly obviously true that Western states don't behave this way. And that they'd never "get a pass from you and your ilk." Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Moonbox Posted September 16, 2012 Report Posted September 16, 2012 Shady man...sometimes you don't really help the argument out at all. The US has a long history of arming militants and people they'd now consider terrorists. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
GostHacked Posted September 16, 2012 Author Report Posted September 16, 2012 Shady man...sometimes you don't really help the argument out at all. The US has a long history of arming militants and people they'd now consider terrorists. Even when it's from the government officials. I posted a video in the other embassy thread about Hillary Clinton where she says and admits that the US helped to create Al-Queda, and yet I am told to put my tinfoil hat on. I mean even when someone like Clinton admits it, I am told I am an idiot and have no idea what I am talking about. Maybe they don't want to see how the west has been arming and funding these terrorist organizations for decades. We can go as far back as the Iran Contra affair. Possibly much further back. But even when I post that evidence, people like Shady STILL ignore it and yet I am ill-informed. Quote
wyly Posted September 16, 2012 Report Posted September 16, 2012 Even when it's from the government officials. I posted a video in the other embassy thread about Hillary Clinton where she says and admits that the US helped to create Al-Queda, and yet I am told to put my tinfoil hat on. I mean even when someone like Clinton admits it, I am told I am an idiot and have no idea what I am talking about. Maybe they don't want to see how the west has been arming and funding these terrorist organizations for decades. We can go as far back as the Iran Contra affair. Possibly much further back. But even when I post that evidence, people like Shady STILL ignore it and yet I am ill-informed. it's hard to fathom the delusional blind faith from the shady's of the world...all Irans' distrust and hostility can be traced back to occupations by western forces and then a puppet dictatorship supported by the US and Britain...and when Iran finally forms a democracy the CIA comes in and organizes a coup to return the dictator and his brutal secret police to power, WTF! is it any wonder they there is a blacklash that results in a more militant regime taking control in Iran...all the ME problems stem from western imperialism/colonial/interference... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
dre Posted September 16, 2012 Report Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) it's hard to fathom the delusional blind faith from the shady's of the world... all Irans' distrust and hostility can be traced back to occupations by western forces and then a puppet dictatorship supported by the US and Britain...and when Iran finally forms a democracy the CIA comes in and organizes a coup to return the dictator and his brutal secret police to power, WTF! is it any wonder they there is a blacklash that results in a more militant regime taking control in Iran...all the ME problems stem from western imperialism/colonial/interference... I think thats a huge part of it, western misadventures over there have certainly been a boon for religious conservatives. A lot of it is sectarian sunni vs shia stuff too. it's hard to fathom the delusional blind faith from the shady's of the world... No its not... go to a hockey game or a soccer game. All 20+ thousand people will be absolutely sure, that every call against their team is unfair, and ever call against the other team was completely justified. Its a pack/team mentality. Actually quite easy to fathom. Edited September 16, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Shady Posted September 16, 2012 Report Posted September 16, 2012 I posted a video in the other embassy thread about Hillary Clinton where she says and admits that the US helped to create Al-Queda Actually, the Soviet Union really helped created Al Qaeda. Without them, none it would have been possible. Besides, helping Afghanistan repel a foreign aggressor was the right thing to do, which didn't "help" create Al Qaeda. Their own radical ideology did. Maybe they don't want to see how the west has been arming and funding these terrorist organizations for decades. We can go as far back as the Iran Contra affair. Possibly much further back. Yep, to repel even worse organizations and people. Usually armed and funded by your buddies in Iran, etc. Anyways, Iran admits that it has troops secretly operating in Syria now. Their butting into other people's affairs continues to grow. I'm sure that the Syrian people appreciate Iran helping a murderous dictator like Assad hold on to power. Quote
wyly Posted September 16, 2012 Report Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) No its not... go to a hockey game or a soccer game. All 20+ thousand people will be absolutely sure, that every call against their team is unfair, and ever call against the other team was completely justified. Its a pack/team mentality. Actually quite easy to fathom. yup you're right... which is another part of the problem rather than being objective about each issue on it's own merit there those who view politics as a team sport, their side is always correct no matter what...shady types will look to whatever talking head he's chosen to be his team leader and it's "aye, aye captain, my captain!" putting no thought into whether the orders/opinion is right or wrong... I still don't fathom it, it's so far removed from how I try to approach an issue, it would be like trying to comprehend an alien's reasoning process... Edited September 16, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
bleeding heart Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 Yep, to repel even worse organizations and people. Well, at least you're openly admitting that Western states are routinely aligned with, and helping, terrorists. An unusual concession. Also unusual is condoning terrorism...but that's another topic, I guess. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
GostHacked Posted September 17, 2012 Author Report Posted September 17, 2012 Actually, the Soviet Union really helped created Al Qaeda. This should be good. Cite? Without them, none it would have been possible. Besides, helping Afghanistan repel a foreign aggressor was the right thing to do, which didn't "help" create Al Qaeda. Their own radical ideology did. Cite? Not like you can. Now you are a revisionist as well. The west (more specifically the USA) helped fund and arm the Muhajedeen which turned into two factions, Al-Qeuda and the Taliban. Maybe you have an issue with what Clinton said. Also she is a democrat so I am surprised you are not partisan hacking all over her fat ass. Yep, to repel even worse organizations and people. Usually armed and funded by your buddies in Iran, etc. Anyways, Iran admits that it has troops secretly operating in Syria now. Their butting into other people's affairs continues to grow. I'm sure that the Syrian people appreciate Iran helping a murderous dictator like Assad hold on to power. Well at least they openly admit it. The west has been covertly FSU in Iran for some time. And I bet the covert actions are taking place in Syria. I make no apologies for Assad, however seeing the immense power vacuum that has been created due to the west funding/arming the rebels to overthrow western backed dictators like Mubarak (Bin-Ali and Gadaffi were not western backed from what I can tell so far). And yet the west seems to be staying out of the game in Syria, why? Two reasons, Russia and China. Those are the same two reasons why Iran wont be attacked overtly by the west. We know who is itching to pull the trigger on attacking Iran and they are getting frustrated so much that Netenyahu has to come to the USA to try to influence elections saying that they need a leader that will help Israel. But the Israeli influence is not that strong right?? Quote
PIK Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) it's hard to fathom the delusional blind faith from the shady's of the world... all Irans' distrust and hostility can be traced back to occupations by western forces and then a puppet dictatorship supported by the US and Britain...and when Iran finally forms a democracy the CIA comes in and organizes a coup to return the dictator and his brutal secret police to power, WTF! is it any wonder they there is a blacklash that results in a more militant regime taking control in Iran...all the ME problems stem from western imperialism/colonial/interference... So we in the western world are just supposed to give up. Feel the white man's guilt like you and bend over and take it up the ass. I don't think so. And FYI Iran's great leaders just told us who is to blame and it is not bush or harper, it is rushdie and they just up the anti on his head. Yes that is right your friends just up the anti on a writer, because he is evil and should be dead. I hope he dies a very horrible deasth for picking on poor Islam . Edited September 17, 2012 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
wyly Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 So we in the western world are just supposed to give up. Feel the white man's guilt like you and bend over and take it up the ass. I don't think so. And FYI Iran's great leaders just told us who is to blame and it is not bush or harper, it is rushdie and they just up the anti on his head. Yes that is right your friends just up the anti on a writer, because he is evil and should be dead. I hope he dies a very horrible deasth for picking on poor Islam . and what does that have to do with the price of rice in china??? ...geez that's not even a competent deflection... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Moonbox Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 This should be good. Cite? Learn some history. The invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR was the birth of Osama Bin Laden as a 'freedom fighter'. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Moonbox Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 I still don't fathom it, it's so far removed from how I try to approach an issue, it would be like trying to comprehend an alien's reasoning process... Oh the hypocrisy. Please guys. Everyone is guilty of this to some extent or another. Some are obviously far worse and we know who they are, but please don't act like you're these shining bastions of pure logic and reason. I've seen enough examples in the past to know that's not true. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
GostHacked Posted September 17, 2012 Author Report Posted September 17, 2012 Learn some history. The invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR was the birth of Osama Bin Laden as a 'freedom fighter'. Right, so one is correct when saying that the USA created Al-Queda. The USA was funding, training and arming the Muhajedeen which gave birth to both the Taliban and Al-Queda. Sure the 'freedom fighters' were fighting off the Soviets before that, but technically Al-queda did not exist until after they were armed by the west. Learn some timelines of history would also be prudent. Quote
wyly Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 Long term imperialism completely rewrites the landscape. Ever heard of the Dark Ages? When the Western Roman Empire collapsed, it wasn't as if Britain all of the sudden united and said, "Sweet! Now we're all Britons and we'll run our own show." Instead, the area fell apart into bands of feuding warlords and so-called kings that didn't get resolved for hundreds of years. dark ages was a misnomer or meme..."dark ages" was a term coined in the Renaissance historians have discarded it as biased, it only describes a brief period in north west europe, arab and byzantine regions never experienced it ...I'm not sure you understand what nationalism means, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up the Bedouins or the Berbers. Even so, you're still not getting it. Let's take India, for example. Prior to British rule, there wasn't an "India". There was a subcontinent of different kingdoms, principalities and empires, and no notion of "Indian" nationalism. The British took over the subcontinent they called India and ran the show for 150 years, after which they relinquished control. The transition was a mess, something like 12 million people died, Pakistan and "India' were separated, and India to this day remains a mess of different ethnic groups that don't get along and barely functions as a state. Minorities are brutally suppressed and armed gangs of thugs (semi-official militia) keep dissenters in line. The partition of India is no different than the partition of the Middle East. It was handled extremely poorly and the poorly drawn borders have only been maintained by force and, hate to say it, cultural genocide. correction you brought up nationalism not me.- I'm not sure how much of a student of history you are but they're incredibly different.Nationalism has, more or less, existed in Europe for hundreds of years. indian nationalism was an artificial creation, just as iraqi nationalism, an imperial power/s draws random lines on a map dividing or joining various ethic or tribal groups to it's own benefit ignoring previous natural divisions... the Kurds and the lands being divided among Turkey,syria,iraq,iran... a nation doesn't need borders, a nation can be an ethnic or tribal group with a common bond, the berbers were a nation, that other ethnic groups carved up their region with borders doesn't make them less of a "nation"... and historians today adjust for that in today's literature and generally have accounts from both sides. If you read any of this stuff you'll find there's always a high and a low estimate. I'm not sure what this proves, however, because this would be true for both Europe and the Middle East, so this doesn't change the fact that European conflict was generally on a much smaller scale. what does it prove? you're the one who claimed it was significant not me, so you tell me what it proves(I guess you already did but it wasn't relevant)...By the way, where do you find these people? You live with a medieval historian, your brother in law is a military tech genius or whatever...next time we argue your wife is going to be a Fortune 500 economist or something!my bro in law spent 25 yrs in the navy/nato, electrical engineer/weapons systems expert(other relatives in the army and airforce)...my daughter, archeology and history(specialty medieval europe)..my wife is a financial bigwig in medicine, but my niece is a VP with a fortune 500 company ...then there is my friend the research chemist with the fed government...other friends and relatives,a Phd in education/child behaviour, a neurologist, cardiologist, professional coaches, geologist, nurses....I've a huge circle of relatives and friends with amazing knowledge who are quite happy to share their expertise with me, and I quiz them every chance I get... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Moonbox Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) dark ages was a misnomer or meme..."dark ages" was a term coined in the Renaissance historians have discarded it as biased, it only describes a brief period in north west europe, arab and byzantine regions never experienced it ... Most of the world never experienced it. Western Europe, however, did. England was a perfect example of the chaos that ensues. The region was a mess of local warlords and so-called kings going at each other for hundreds of years. indian nationalism was an artificial creation, just as iraqi nationalism, an imperial power/s draws random lines on a map dividing or joining various ethic or tribal groups to it's own benefit ignoring previous natural divisions... the Kurds and the lands being divided among Turkey,syria,iraq,iran... Umm...That's kind of what I was getting at. You'd claimed that Britain's occupation of India didn't erase the previous 'nationalism' of its inhabitants. Perhaps you're using a different definition of nationalism (there are many) but the fact is that Britain completely transformed Indian society and it was profoundly different when they left. It didn't completely erase the ethnicity or culture of the inhabitants, but politically it was pretty much an empty slate when they left and a rather big mess at that. India and Pakistan went to war and continue to fight over Kashmir. This is the sort of instability the West wants to avoid in the Middle East. a nation doesn't need borders, a nation can be an ethnic or tribal group with a common bond, the berbers were a nation, that other ethnic groups carved up their region with borders doesn't make them less of a "nation"... A primordial definition of 'nation' could mean that. By that definition, there's a Gyspy Nation as well. For our purposes, however, this doesn't mean much. It's just an ethnic group. A modern take on nationalism involves more tangible things, like a central authority largely able to maintain unity within a state, self-sustraining economy/infrastructure and a population that identifies with a political system and land rather than just common ancestry and race/religion. what does it prove? you're the one who claimed it was significant not me, so you tell me what it proves(I guess you already did but it wasn't relevant)... I said conflicts outside of Europe were generally far larger and far more devastating. You response was that medieval historians exaggerated numbers. If that's the case, then numbers were exaggerated for both European and non-European wars, still leaving non-European ones much larger and more devastating. What I was trying to say was that your assertion that numbers were exaggerated by chroniclers of the time has ZERO impact on the point being made. my bro in law spent 25 yrs in the navy/nato, electrical engineer/weapons systems expert(other relatives in the army and airforce)...my daughter, archeology and history(specialty medieval europe)..my wife is a financial bigwig in medicine, but my niece is a VP with a fortune 500 company ...then there is my friend the research chemist with the fed government...other friends and relatives,a Phd in education/child behaviour, a neurologist, cardiologist, professional coaches, geologist, nurses....I've a huge circle of relatives and friends with amazing knowledge who are quite happy to share their expertise with me, and I quiz them every chance I get... As impressive as you may think that is, your family/acquaintances do not make you an expert on these subjects. My sister is a PhD studying Alzheimers. She talks about it all the time. I ask her questions about it. I still no next to nothing about it, especially how to spell the damn word. If your daughter's medieval history background rubbed off on you so strong, you wouldn't have said: the mongol invasion was very short term and petty... because the exact opposite was true and this isn't exactly obscure info. Edited September 17, 2012 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Moonbox Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 Right, so one is correct when saying that the USA created Al-Queda. The USA was funding, training and arming the Muhajedeen which gave birth to both the Taliban and Al-Queda. Sure the 'freedom fighters' were fighting off the Soviets before that, but technically Al-queda did not exist until after they were armed by the west. Learn some timelines of history would also be prudent. Timelines huh? What sort of literature have you followed on the subject? Al-Qaeda is a direct result of Soviet and Western Imperialism. They're both responsible. Al-Qaeda would not likely have existed without the Soviet invasion. It gave the Islamic world a focal point for people like Bin-Laden aside from just Israel. The Mujahadeen in Afghanistan was a romantic quest for young Arabs and it ignited the imaginations of both the pious and zealous all over the Islamic World. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Shady Posted September 18, 2012 Report Posted September 18, 2012 Right, so one is correct when saying that the USA created Al-Queda. The USA was funding, training and arming the Muhajedeen which gave birth to both the Taliban and Al-Queda. Nope. You're wrong again, as usual. Also, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda aren't the same, so I'm not sure why you keep using them interchangeably. As has already been pointed out by other posters, the Mujahadeen existed before western help. They just weren't very successful in repelling the Soviets. I'm not sure why you think helping somebody repel an outside invader is such a bad thing. You don't make any sense at all. As usual. Quote
GostHacked Posted September 18, 2012 Author Report Posted September 18, 2012 Nope. You're wrong again, as usual. Also, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda aren't the same, so I'm not sure why you keep using them interchangeably. NO kidding they are different groups, just showing you the connections between the two and their origins is kind of important to note. The Taliban gave Al-Queda refuge in a way. But even after some time, a falling out between the two and when the US/NATO invaded the Taliban said that they had nothing to do with Al-Queda, yet they seem to be hanging with the Taliban after the invasion in order to attack the NATO bases in Afghanistan. As has already been pointed out by other posters, the Mujahadeen existed before western help. That I have no doubts. But an enemy of my enemy does not always mean they are your friends at any measure. Because they are thinking the same, my enemy's enemy is helping me. Well that can work in their favour as well. It's called blowback for a reason. They just weren't very successful in repelling the Soviets. I'm not sure why you think helping somebody repel an outside invader is such a bad thing. You don't make any sense at all. As usual. So you have no problem with funding terrorists. This much I understand. Then you and others like you stand around all confused when a terrible thing like 9/11 happens thinking it's all because they hate us for our freedoms. Quote
bleeding heart Posted September 18, 2012 Report Posted September 18, 2012 So you have no problem with funding terrorists. This much I understand. Well, sure; he was perfectly explicit about it. Lots of people who are offended by Islamist terrorism have no issue at all with terrorism in general. Of course, it begs the question of why they pretend to outrage and sanctimony about "terrorism," when in fact they support and defend it. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
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.