A man of principles who travels thousands of miles as part of an invading army (oops, I meant peace keeping force) to kill people of a different color, religion, and culture in their own country.M. Bréqs wrote: I remain a man of principles.
Well,,jashic wrote:Again, those on the far left have yet to answer the question of what we should have done instead of topple the taliban on Afghanistan.
1) Apologize for being so mean to them in the past 10 years. Thank them for supporting the killing of 3500 US civilians to make us see the light. Send them foreign aid as a thank you for killing our civilians.
2) Go to the UN and propose another worthless UN resolution condemning the killing of 3500 US civilians
3) Send an ambassador to Afghanistan, condemning in the harshest of languages, the killing of 3500 of our civilians
On the flip side, those on the far right have yet to answer the question of what we are continually doing in Afghanistan after we have met our primary objective of toppling the taliban. My guess is as follows:
Those on the far left would have done NOTHING after the killing of 3500 US civilians. They would have looked introspectively at the flaws of US foreign policy and held a peace vigil to hope that such attacks never happen again. Blamed the US government for the attacks and then sent money to the taliban as an apology for our past foreign policy mistakes.
Those on the far right do not want to leave afghanistan because even though there is no objective to complete in a "public" policy sense, there is some truth to the fact that we want to have a military presence there for the long term. Whether thats for oil, pipelines, missile defense sites against china, or just to prove to the rest of the world that we have big dicks...whatever it is, the far right wants to be in the middle east at whatever cost.
The RIGHT answer would be, get the hell out of Afghanistan since the taliban no longer exists as the government. Leave a NATO sponsored peacekeeping force to prevent taliban resurgence. And when I say NATO, I mean NATO. Not 99% US soldiers and fucking 2 engineers from France.
Are you kidding me? If you are denying Taliban/Al Qaeda and Afghanistan links, then well, there's no point in discussing this any further. I'll just put you in the "far left" category and leave it at that.Homebelly wrote:Well,,jashic wrote:Again, those on the far left have yet to answer the question of what we should have done instead of topple the taliban on Afghanistan.
1) Apologize for being so mean to them in the past 10 years. Thank them for supporting the killing of 3500 US civilians to make us see the light. Send them foreign aid as a thank you for killing our civilians.
2) Go to the UN and propose another worthless UN resolution condemning the killing of 3500 US civilians
3) Send an ambassador to Afghanistan, condemning in the harshest of languages, the killing of 3500 of our civilians
On the flip side, those on the far right have yet to answer the question of what we are continually doing in Afghanistan after we have met our primary objective of toppling the taliban. My guess is as follows:
Those on the far left would have done NOTHING after the killing of 3500 US civilians. They would have looked introspectively at the flaws of US foreign policy and held a peace vigil to hope that such attacks never happen again. Blamed the US government for the attacks and then sent money to the taliban as an apology for our past foreign policy mistakes.
Those on the far right do not want to leave afghanistan because even though there is no objective to complete in a "public" policy sense, there is some truth to the fact that we want to have a military presence there for the long term. Whether thats for oil, pipelines, missile defense sites against china, or just to prove to the rest of the world that we have big dicks...whatever it is, the far right wants to be in the middle east at whatever cost.
The RIGHT answer would be, get the hell out of Afghanistan since the taliban no longer exists as the government. Leave a NATO sponsored peacekeeping force to prevent taliban resurgence. And when I say NATO, I mean NATO. Not 99% US soldiers and fucking 2 engineers from France.
all of this seems very insightful except for one thing.
What did the Taliban have to do with 9/11?
No i'm not kidding you.jashic wrote: Are you kidding me? If you are denying Taliban/Al Qaeda and Afghanistan links, then well, there's no point in discussing this any further. I'll just put you in the "far left" category and leave it at that.
If you truly don't know, then I suggest wikipedia.
"After Sudan made it clear that bin Laden and his group were no longer welcome that year, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan — with previously established connections between the groups, a similar outlook on world affairs and largely isolated from American political influence and military power — provided a perfect location for al-Qaeda to establish its headquarters."
My only source wikipedia? Um, you can spend to eternity finding these obscure sources on the internet if you'd like but frankly, you are started to sound a little bit like a freak. And I'm really not kidding about that. Scary too if I may add. Do your friends know you think this way? Wow. Simply wow. What kind of water do they have in New Zealand?Homebelly wrote:No i'm not kidding you.jashic wrote: Are you kidding me? If you are denying Taliban/Al Qaeda and Afghanistan links, then well, there's no point in discussing this any further. I'll just put you in the "far left" category and leave it at that.
If you truly don't know, then I suggest wikipedia.
"After Sudan made it clear that bin Laden and his group were no longer welcome that year, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan — with previously established connections between the groups, a similar outlook on world affairs and largely isolated from American political influence and military power — provided a perfect location for al-Qaeda to establish its headquarters."
And if your only source is the wikipedia then your probably right, maybe we should stop this discussion here.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though and share some of the other facts.
Most every aspect of 9/11 that connects AQ/Afghanistan to what happened on 9/11 is based around the presumption that AQ was in fact an organized and galvanized body that controlled a net work of global terrorist cells at the time of 9/11 and that the supposed highjakers had all spent time in Afghanistan. As far as i am aware none of this can be proven and most of the evidence is circumstantial at best. I believe this is also why if you go to the FBI most wanted site 9/11 is not listed in OBL biography.
What can be proven is that most of all of these camps that existed in Afghanistan to train fighters for the mujahideen and most of the support for these camps came from ISI and Saudi. The taliban where no big fans of OBL, in fact they had tried to give him up on a number of occasions. They only really jumped into bed with one and other when it became clear that the US had designs on establishing some kind of autonomous control over Afghanistan. This is where the whole pipe line story comes from, the Taliban even had representatives come to the US for talks on this.
It is my understanding that these talks failed in part because at heart the taliban want nothing to do with any aspect of non-Islamic culture or influence as this would lead to a corruption of Sharia. This is where the Taliban and OBL ideologies start to converge as OBL's main objection to the US is in it's cultural and economic expansion into Muslim countries at this point they have a common course .
I'm not sure what you are referencing in your other post about 1996. A lot of stuff happened that year. If we are to believe that AQ is a highly efficient organization then it could be said that this was the year AQ declared war on the US as OBL issued is fatwa against the presence of foreign troops on Muslim soil. This act inspired the bombings of the USS Cole and the US embassy bombings in a couple of east african countries.
I am of the opinion that AQ probably does exist now, i'm not so sure it did at the time of 9/11, i think it became a more tangible entity after the west started using the name and idea of it's existence after the fact to make it easier to sell the idea of the war on terror, at this point i believe AQ became more galvanized in order to engage in this war. This is how i understand it when some media commentators and journalists such as Robert Fisk describe AQ as a western invention.
Ahh.. come on,don't be shy,, go a head and enlighten me.jashic wrote:
My only source wikipedia? Um, you can spend to eternity finding these obscure sources on the internet if you'd like but frankly, you are started to sound a little bit like a freak. And I'm really not kidding about that. Scary too if I may add. Do your friends know you think this way? Wow. Simply wow. What kind of water do they have in New Zealand?
And yes, we should stop this discussion now. You are waaay out there and too far from where I am for us to have even a remote chance of coming to any reasonable conclusions together. Have a good day.
He won't he can't abnd he doesn't want to. Any concept outside of what he considers "normal" media outlets is considered "conspiracy" oriented etc. even though 99% of the information is readily available. Things like the simple fact that the Taliban did not plan 9/11, and most likely had no idea it was in the works with Bin Ladin and crew, who did not call themselves Al Qada at the time of 9/11.Homebelly wrote:Ahh.. come on,don't be shy,, go a head and enlighten me.jashic wrote:
My only source wikipedia? Um, you can spend to eternity finding these obscure sources on the internet if you'd like but frankly, you are started to sound a little bit like a freak. And I'm really not kidding about that. Scary too if I may add. Do your friends know you think this way? Wow. Simply wow. What kind of water do they have in New Zealand?
And yes, we should stop this discussion now. You are waaay out there and too far from where I am for us to have even a remote chance of coming to any reasonable conclusions together. Have a good day.
OK what about what I said is conspiracy? Like I said 99% of anything I've talked about in this thread has been from major media outlets, is well documented, and isn't even a point of argument. Granted it's a footnote, you actually have to read the entire article to get the real information but they do provide it. For instance the major media outlets did add information about the pipeline being built, but it was buried in yet another article about fighting in the north of Afghanistan etc.jashic wrote:lol, conspiracy theorists are so black and white about these things. The boogeyman is out there to get me!!!! ahhhh!!!!!
I am far from the left and far from the right. I'm pragmatic unlike some. Here's a suggestion. The two of you get together, go to your basement with flashlights and scare yourselves for fun.
And...
BEWARE THE BOOGEYMAN!!
Machinesworking wrote:OK what about what I said is conspiracy? Like I said 99% of anything I've talked about in this thread has been from major media outlets, is well documented, and isn't even a point of argument. Granted it's a footnote, you actually have to read the entire article to get the real information but they do provide it. For instance the major media outlets did add information about the pipeline being built, but it was buried in yet another article about fighting in the north of Afghanistan etc.jashic wrote:lol, conspiracy theorists are so black and white about these things. The boogeyman is out there to get me!!!! ahhhh!!!!!
I am far from the left and far from the right. I'm pragmatic unlike some. Here's a suggestion. The two of you get together, go to your basement with flashlights and scare yourselves for fun.
And...
BEWARE THE BOOGEYMAN!!
The best part of all this is you yourself have chosen to skim the headlines of a news story, and then turn around and accuse people of being conspiracy oriented. It's called willful ignorance. You don't want to think of your own government as being somewhat responsible for the attitude of the fundamentalists in the middle east so you ignore any information that points to that.
You can't even acknowledge that the far right are the because they want to secure the oil reserves, no matter how often, and how obvious it is. Doesn't matter that our current government is made up of oil barons, it's still up for debate whether or not that was their 'agenda' in the middle east.
It doesn't matter that every indian, every middle eastern person, and every muslim who is living in the west, who posts on this board who obviously is not a fundamentalist, is sickened by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and frightened by our continued aggression towards Iran. None of that matters, because somehow even if they embrace western culture and live in the west they are somehow wrong in their thinking. ..and you are currently calling people crazy who tell you that Afghanistan is, and was a strategic country in the oil wars, even though it's an overly documented fact........
Willful ignorance is what I want to say, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you just don't really know much about the middle east, and what the politics of the west have been like there? I can understand that, but what it looks like is a willingness to blur any direct, solid, logical connections that anybody outside western culture makes with no convoluted hemming and hawing, no avoiding the simple simple fact that our government is interested in securing the oil reserves, and little else. Why else would we side with drug lords? Why else would we ignore Bin Ladin in favor of securing large oil producing nations run by a dictator that was Bin Ladins least favorite government in the middle east besides the state of Israel????
You keep posting how people aren't answering your questions, I already did, but you haven't come back to any of mine with anything other than childish attempts at branding me a conspiracy buff.
....and I do agree with your solution to Afghanistan, but the USA does indeed need to be the main presence in the UN forces, we engaged them, we should bear the brunt of the cost of maintaining the peace.
