eits
Lifer
it was a small fundamentalist islamic group who mainly lived in afghanistan... now, they live nowhere.
wtf are you trying to get at by asking retarded questions?
wtf did you think, that the entire middle east were members of the taliban?
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
well, most of the "crack downs" I mentioned are done in the name of Islam. Perhaps they boil down to old-fashioned tyranny, but you cannot deny that Islam plays a role. Islam becomes the tool they use to bash people over the head during said crack downs...
Should the US stop supporting any/all government with Muslim leaders? Was that your suggestion? If so, that sounds awfully similar to one of OBL's demands...
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: eits
it was a small fundamentalist islamic group who mainly lived in afghanistan... now, they live nowhere.
wtf are you trying to get at by asking retarded questions?
wtf did you think, that the entire middle east were members of the taliban?
This is simply not true, the Taliban are alive and well in both Pakistan and lately back in Afghanistan too.
Chuck may be wrong, and he definently is but that doesn't make it ok for you to make up your own truth.
Originally posted by: eits
it was a small fundamentalist islamic group who mainly lived in afghanistan... now, they live nowhere.
wtf are you trying to get at by asking retarded questions?
wtf did you think, that the entire middle east were members of the taliban?
They don't live anywhere? They don't exist? Funny, I could have sworn both palehorse74 and JohnOfSheffield were talking about how that group needs to be eradicated from this earth. Can't believe they'd be talking about a group that doesn't exist anymore... :roll:
My whole point is that while Pakistani women are allowed to wear whatever they want, areas controlled by the Taliban certainly will not. Since we all know the Taliban is still alive and kicking, and that they are in Pakistan, that accepting Aimster's comment there are only dress codes (meaning: control of women) in Iran and SA would be accepting a falsehood.
Where radical Islam is concerned - or any religion for that matter - I don't think we should be giving them the benefit of any doubt. Taking inaction or indifference so Taliban style influence can spread is the wrong direction to be heading...
Chuck
P.S. No sh1t the entire ME isn't Taliban... :roll:
But of course, they are sub human, after all. Sadism is best that hides behind morality. They shoot women in the vagina that break Gods law and you shoot them in the stomach for lesser reasons, no? You would think that you could see the connection and at least just put them out of their misery. A superior moral claim should at least be followed by superior moral action, no?
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,955
- 10,298
- 136
Do you want me to draw a line, to speak to you in black and white? Right and wrong? The world does not work that way but I will spend a minute to describe this subject. The truth is a gray area between saying all Muslims are evil and saying there is nothing more to Islamic supremacism than any other group.
For America to protect itself from Islamic supremacism, from further terrorist attacks, I feel the most important thing we must do is not invade Muslim nations. Instead, we must purge this supremacy from our land.
If that includes the entire Islamic faith depends on if there are enough moderate Muslims in the first place. Depends on if those moderates will stand up and strengthen their presence and not only condemn the violent radicals but to join us in finding and stopping them. We cannot cull out their extremists, they must help us do this.
If such a union between us and Islam cannot come together for a peaceful co-existence, then there shall never be a peaceful co-existence and the only way we will restore peace to this nation is to banish the whole faith.
I do believe there are peace loving Muslims, like those who the radicals slaughter in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Like the men hung in Iran because they might dissent from the government imposed radicalization. Their numbers diminish or no longer matter because they are either silenced or killed. We need these people, I fear there aren?t enough of them.
Then there are the ones you might call ?moderates? merely because they do not themselves pick up arms to kill us, but who passively support, sponsor, and protect the radicals. I cannot say how many fit into this category, but at the very least a quarter support suicide bombings, and two thirds refuse to believe Muslims committed 9-11. A quarter out of 2+ million is not a shabby number to have right here on our soil.
Do whites not condemn and stop white supremacists themselves? Did we not kill the Oklahoma City bomber? Did we celebrate what he did as the will of god and then train thousands of children to follow in his footsteps?
Do you see a difference yet?
Not to mention there?s the foreign aspect of it. This is not us causing violence on ourselves. This is a foreign ideology, whose fanaticism is carried to our shores and declares its supremacy over us. Which had a mere 19 followers kill 3,000 and which has carried out a global campaign to kill infidels across the globe. Over 9,000 news reports of such incidents across the globe since 2001.
There is always one common denominator, one common profile. How deeply do you want to sit here and tell us it equivalent to white supremacism? How about in terms of what the threat is to us, between the two which is the vast majority of terrorist attacks against the western world, or against peace loving Muslims such as those in the OP?
I will gladly condemn all supremacism and people who impose their will on others, but right now only one has a sworn its vow to kill us and is actively working on that goal while sheltered by their community. You mention white supremacism but I feel the western world has largely repented for the sins of the past, we should not permit you or anyone else to use our past sins as a cover or justification for future crimes against us.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
No, they shoot them because they have been so abused that their blackened skin no longer makes them attractive, you don't know this and you do NOT know me, don't pretend like you know anything about me, don't sit on a fucking high horse being all high and mighty while going to bed at home every fucking night.
If you are not for punishing the guilty then so be it, don't talk to me about it though, talk to their mothers, you could do that you know, if you had the fucking guts to join me in hell, then i wouldn't have to and maybe even i could be a nicer less fucked up person, what do you say?
Remember what i said about human emotion in the last thread you escaped from like you will run away from this one? While you'd shoot someone out of indifference it takes basic human emotions like hate and fear to make me pull the trigger, who is worse, you or me?
Are the Taliban "the disease"?. How do you cure this entrenched "disease". A certain kind of "disease." What disease? It certainly does not appear that the persons involved believe themselves "diseased". Of course, it could be a form of depression lingering about the overall and well-known hopelessness of curing any form of religious repression caused by the educated ignorance of the Luddites in all religious milieus, our nation's included. Please identify the "disease" so we can all focus on a cure. Most of us already know who the virus is and it is one of us (Pogo wisdom).
From 2001 to the present, the Pakistanis reportedly have not arrested a single Taliban leader. The Taliban operate their headquarters unimpeded out of Quetta, the capital of Pakistan's Baluchistan province, the gateway to Kandahar in southern Afghanistan.
Aha, but is Quetta really in Pakistan? Or is it in Afghanistan?
That's the question nobody wants raised. That's why the Taliban are able to operate unimpeded. So that the question of whether Quetta is in Pakistan or Afghanistan is never raised again.
The Taliban and Afghanistan - they are and forever will be a creature of Pakistan and the ISI. The uncomfortable truth is that both the Bush and Clinton administrations have done nothing about this because Pakistan has nuclear weapons - and a culture of corruption (remember A.Q. Khan) that would sell them in a second if they thought that they could get away with it. Couple that with the fact that Waziristan and Afghanistan share the Pashtu tribe - who feel that they have the right to rule in Afghanistan - and you have the two prime motivations driving policy in the region.
Pakistan is "close" to being a failed state - the tribal regions have essentially become independent, the army sucks all the money from the budget, and you have a security service that also operates independently, but is driven by it's own ideology (Islamic) and realpolitick (destabilize the neighbors) agenda. And the "recruits" for the Taliban these days seem to come mainly from Pakistan - from Afghanis who have lived there since the Russian times and from "ethnic" Pashtu brothers in search of heaven.
The reason why there's so many Afghan Pushtuns in Quetta and the transborder regions is two-fold. The first reason is the usual mismatch you find when European colonialists have the power to determine the national borders of tribal peoples. The Durand Line was drawn right through Pashtun territory.
But the second reason is the Soviet invasion. The Soviet strategy in the war was to deprive the rebels of support by bombing the villages to bits and driving the survivors out into Pakistan.
Pakistan didn't really need a giant influx of yet more Afghan Pashtuns who are living in a part of Pakistan that they believe is really part of Afghanistan.
But let's not forget what forces combined to create it - both European colonialism and Soviet Marxism, a historically toxic combination in this region. Sometimes I think that maybe Bush was so hot to get Saddam because he was told by the CIA that we weren't going to get Bin Laden because getting Bin laden could end up tearing Pakistan in half.
"Rival" has to be taken in context. Musharraf came to power by accusing the government of Nawaz Sharif of being too dovish with respect to India, specifically about the Kargil confrontation, where he was the commander in chief. The Pakistani military is much closer to the ISI than the civilian governments were, and even the civilian governments found the ISI policies with regards to the Taliban and Al Qaeda to be convenient ways to prosecute the war with India, since they trained the infiltrators from Jaish-e-Muhammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba that Pakistan sends into Kashmir.
Combine that with the fact that the Pakistani government openly complained about the Kabul government set up by the U.S. as not sufficiently Pashtun, and not sufficiently pro-Pakistan, and it seems genuinely hard to find the rift between what the ISI does and what Musharraf wants. The rivalry for power does exist. But any assertion by the U.S. or its journalistic critics that there is anything we can exploit here, that is, that we can somehow get Musharraf to back us and not the ISI is ludicrous.
It's also a repeat mistake, since the State Department and the CIA spent the better part of 10 years looking for "moderate Taliban" to forge alliances, and went so far in accepting what the Pakistani government and the ISI told them as to bankroll absolutely dispicable characters like Hekmatyar, while short-changing the more Tajik and less pro-Pakistani Massoud.
If we truly believe that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are operating with impunity out of Pakistan, we should do the straightforward thing: Put Pakistan on the list of State Sponsors of Terror, cut off their aid, and begin bombing the strongholds in Waziristan and the NWFT, and tell them they are risking all out war. Any other strategy amounts to being played the fool by Musharraf, and his ISI.
When Cheney was in Pakistan delivering a message that the Pakistanis need to clamp down on the support for the Taliban - then it is about time that someone has finally figured out that the only way you are going to shut down the violence in Afghanistan is by shutting down the enabling agencies. And if you are dreaming that more "aid" in Afghanistan is going to suppress the outsiders - then you are just continuing down the same "build it up - they tear it down" road that has been going on for years.
Cure the "disease" and the symptoms go away.
From 2001 to the present, the Pakistanis reportedly have not arrested a single Taliban leader. The Taliban operate their headquarters unimpeded out of Quetta, the capital of Pakistan's Baluchistan province, the gateway to Kandahar in southern Afghanistan.
Aha, but is Quetta really in Pakistan? Or is it in Afghanistan?
That's the question nobody wants raised. That's why the Taliban are able to operate unimpeded. So that the question of whether Quetta is in Pakistan or Afghanistan is never raised again.
The Taliban and Afghanistan - they are and forever will be a creature of Pakistan and the ISI. The uncomfortable truth is that both the Bush and Clinton administrations have done nothing about this because Pakistan has nuclear weapons - and a culture of corruption (remember A.Q. Khan) that would sell them in a second if they thought that they could get away with it. Couple that with the fact that Waziristan and Afghanistan share the Pashtu tribe - who feel that they have the right to rule in Afghanistan - and you have the two prime motivations driving policy in the region.
Pakistan is "close" to being a failed state - the tribal regions have essentially become independent, the army sucks all the money from the budget, and you have a security service that also operates independently, but is driven by it's own ideology (Islamic) and realpolitick (destabilize the neighbors) agenda. And the "recruits" for the Taliban these days seem to come mainly from Pakistan - from Afghanis who have lived there since the Russian times and from "ethnic" Pashtu brothers in search of heaven.
The reason why there's so many Afghan Pushtuns in Quetta and the transborder regions is two-fold. The first reason is the usual mismatch you find when European colonialists have the power to determine the national borders of tribal peoples. The Durand Line was drawn right through Pashtun territory.
But the second reason is the Soviet invasion. The Soviet strategy in the war was to deprive the rebels of support by bombing the villages to bits and driving the survivors out into Pakistan.
Pakistan didn't really need a giant influx of yet more Afghan Pashtuns who are living in a part of Pakistan that they believe is really part of Afghanistan.
But let's not forget what forces combined to create it - both European colonialism and Soviet Marxism, a historically toxic combination in this region. Sometimes I think that maybe Bush was so hot to get Saddam because he was told by the CIA that we weren't going to get Bin Laden because getting Bin laden could end up tearing Pakistan in half.
"Rival" has to be taken in context. Musharraf came to power by accusing the government of Nawaz Sharif of being too dovish with respect to India, specifically about the Kargil confrontation, where he was the commander in chief. The Pakistani military is much closer to the ISI than the civilian governments were, and even the civilian governments found the ISI policies with regards to the Taliban and Al Qaeda to be convenient ways to prosecute the war with India, since they trained the infiltrators from Jaish-e-Muhammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba that Pakistan sends into Kashmir.
Combine that with the fact that the Pakistani government openly complained about the Kabul government set up by the U.S. as not sufficiently Pashtun, and not sufficiently pro-Pakistan, and it seems genuinely hard to find the rift between what the ISI does and what Musharraf wants. The rivalry for power does exist. But any assertion by the U.S. or its journalistic critics that there is anything we can exploit here, that is, that we can somehow get Musharraf to back us and not the ISI is ludicrous.
It's also a repeat mistake, since the State Department and the CIA spent the better part of 10 years looking for "moderate Taliban" to forge alliances, and went so far in accepting what the Pakistani government and the ISI told them as to bankroll absolutely dispicable characters like Hekmatyar, while short-changing the more Tajik and less pro-Pakistani Massoud.
If we truly believe that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are operating with impunity out of Pakistan, we should do the straightforward thing: Put Pakistan on the list of State Sponsors of Terror, cut off their aid, and begin bombing the strongholds in Waziristan and the NWFT, and tell them they are risking all out war. Any other strategy amounts to being played the fool by Musharraf, and his ISI.
When Cheney was in Pakistan delivering a message that the Pakistanis need to clamp down on the support for the Taliban - then it is about time that someone has finally figured out that the only way you are going to shut down the violence in Afghanistan is by shutting down the enabling agencies. And if you are dreaming that more "aid" in Afghanistan is going to suppress the outsiders - then you are just continuing down the same "build it up - they tear it down" road that has been going on for years.
Cure the "disease" and the symptoms go away.
Indeed...I think we should be far more concerned with Pakistan than we currently are. Ideological failings in other parts of that region are not as worrisome as the dramatic instability in Pakistan's government. I also think the comment made about Pakistan's attitude towards India is quite possibly an even larger problem than their tactic support for Al Qaeda and the Taliban. That's two nuclear armed countries a lot closer to war than anyone realizes...a bunch of terrorists running around in the border region could end up being the least of our concerns. India at least seems stable enough not to start anything at the moment, but I think Pakistan's government instability is exactly the kind of thing that could lead to a conflict.
Pakistan troubles me a lot more than Iran, at least for the moment. Iran has a lot of bluster and is quite possibly supporting insurgents in Iraq, but I think they talk a lot bigger than they really are. Iran isn't going to nuke anyone or invade a neighbor, denouncing Americans and Israelis is political strategy over there. Pakistan, on the other hand, makes noises about "friendship" but seems to be acting like our enemy at every possible opportunity...and they already have nuclear weapons. Like they say, it's the quite ones you've got to watch. And if I was running the Indian intelligence services, I'd be watching them very closely indeed.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
The idea of BMW may be-----That was entirely accurate and brilliant!
But its still incredibility naive and stupid in MHO. The flaw is in assuming that if you remove an evil it will be replaced by something better and when you are dealing with something like Pakistan, the long long long odds are that if Musharraf falls he will be replaced by something far far far worse.
In a nutshell, exactly that same thinking dominated the Iraqi decision to replace Saddam and we got instant anarchy and a resultant insurgency for our pains. Now along comes BMW advocating more of the same and we are likely to get instant anarchy, a resultant much larger insurgency without any troops to contain it, and add loose nukes to the toxic mix.
And thats a brilliant analysis BMW? I too have a sure fire cure for cancer. Kill the patient, it cures the decease and all symptoms also.
But its still incredibility naive and stupid in MHO. The flaw is in assuming that if you remove an evil it will be replaced by something better and when you are dealing with something like Pakistan, the long long long odds are that if Musharraf falls he will be replaced by something far far far worse.
In a nutshell, exactly that same thinking dominated the Iraqi decision to replace Saddam and we got instant anarchy and a resultant insurgency for our pains. Now along comes BMW advocating more of the same and we are likely to get instant anarchy, a resultant much larger insurgency without any troops to contain it, and add loose nukes to the toxic mix.
And thats a brilliant analysis BMW? I too have a sure fire cure for cancer. Kill the patient, it cures the decease and all symptoms also.
We have to be able to look through the politics.
I know the main reason the political warriors here are curious about the world is to find weapons to use in political warfare here at home. So it's only important for them to understand Afghanistan as much as he can use that understanding as an indictment against Bush.
Now I'm all for indicting Bush. That's fine with me.
BUT this is a real problem, and it's not going to be solved by only paying attention to the particular bits of "truthiness", facts & history that can be picked up and used as a weapon in American political and cultural warfare.
We're so much more screwed in Afghanistan than the political warriors are willing to imagine.
Maybe the only way to solve this problem would be by moving the Durand Line ourselves, so that the Taliban can no longer hide in Pakistan, because they'd be in Afghanistan, where our troops can get them. But since Pakistan has the bomb, I guess moving the border is out of the question, eh?
Al Qaeda is an internationalist movement. The Taliban is internationalist. They don't really care about Afghanistan - they want to exert power over the whole world.
If I were head of the CIA I would get one of my little puppies at the New York Times to do a front page story on the old "Pushtunistan" question, and dredge up some old Afghan refugees who still care about the Durand treaty to issue opinions and make it sound like there is a growing resurgence of Afghan nationalism.
Afghan nationalism is what the ISI AND Musharraf are afraid of. That's why they prefer the Taliban, because Taliban and Al Qaeda have no interest whatsoever in the question of a Pushtun homeland.
If the clip is still available, to go back and listen to Musharraf confess this fact when he was interviewed on the Daily Show.
He said on the Daily Show he wanted to avoid triggering any "national movements" in the process of going after Bin Laden. He said it quickly and Stewart didn't ask what "national movements" he was afraid of in that region. But there's only one in that region and it's "Pushtunistan".
Maybe we could play this card ourselves, since it's being played anyways, against our interests.
We could f*ck with the ISI directly. Put a story in the NYT on "Pushtunistan". Have State Department lackeys drop casual references to "Afghan nationalism" in official briefings and keep doing it until the damned ISI gets so freaked out that they go out and find Bin Laden and bring him to Washington DC and hand him to Bush themselves. Just to get the administration to stop using the word "Pushtunistan." But I digress, this Administration and its warriors are not that smart, thinks the media is "liberal" and seems to have other interests (Iraq).
We have to find a way out of this humiliating stalemate. Throwing more money on the problem is only going to take us so far. The viral infection, the "disease", is not cured by this.
I know the main reason the political warriors here are curious about the world is to find weapons to use in political warfare here at home. So it's only important for them to understand Afghanistan as much as he can use that understanding as an indictment against Bush.
Now I'm all for indicting Bush. That's fine with me.
BUT this is a real problem, and it's not going to be solved by only paying attention to the particular bits of "truthiness", facts & history that can be picked up and used as a weapon in American political and cultural warfare.
We're so much more screwed in Afghanistan than the political warriors are willing to imagine.
Maybe the only way to solve this problem would be by moving the Durand Line ourselves, so that the Taliban can no longer hide in Pakistan, because they'd be in Afghanistan, where our troops can get them. But since Pakistan has the bomb, I guess moving the border is out of the question, eh?
Al Qaeda is an internationalist movement. The Taliban is internationalist. They don't really care about Afghanistan - they want to exert power over the whole world.
If I were head of the CIA I would get one of my little puppies at the New York Times to do a front page story on the old "Pushtunistan" question, and dredge up some old Afghan refugees who still care about the Durand treaty to issue opinions and make it sound like there is a growing resurgence of Afghan nationalism.
Afghan nationalism is what the ISI AND Musharraf are afraid of. That's why they prefer the Taliban, because Taliban and Al Qaeda have no interest whatsoever in the question of a Pushtun homeland.
If the clip is still available, to go back and listen to Musharraf confess this fact when he was interviewed on the Daily Show.
He said on the Daily Show he wanted to avoid triggering any "national movements" in the process of going after Bin Laden. He said it quickly and Stewart didn't ask what "national movements" he was afraid of in that region. But there's only one in that region and it's "Pushtunistan".
Maybe we could play this card ourselves, since it's being played anyways, against our interests.
We could f*ck with the ISI directly. Put a story in the NYT on "Pushtunistan". Have State Department lackeys drop casual references to "Afghan nationalism" in official briefings and keep doing it until the damned ISI gets so freaked out that they go out and find Bin Laden and bring him to Washington DC and hand him to Bush themselves. Just to get the administration to stop using the word "Pushtunistan." But I digress, this Administration and its warriors are not that smart, thinks the media is "liberal" and seems to have other interests (Iraq).
We have to find a way out of this humiliating stalemate. Throwing more money on the problem is only going to take us so far. The viral infection, the "disease", is not cured by this.
JOS: No, they shoot them because they have been so abused that their blackened skin no longer makes them attractive, you don't know this and you do NOT know me, don't pretend like you know anything about me, don't sit on a fucking high horse being all high and mighty while going to bed at home every fucking night.
M: My dear Sir, there is deep compassion in your words here, deep sadness, deep pain, deep remorse and deep love. I don't know you but I know me. To bear such feelings causes rage for there is nothing you can do that can ever wipe away what others have had to suffer.
JOS: If you are not for punishing the guilty then so be it, don't talk to me about it though, talk to their mothers, you could do that you know, if you had the fucking guts to join me in hell, then i wouldn't have to and maybe even i could be a nicer less fucked up person, what do you say?
M: I am for punishing the guilty and have searched high and low for who they are. But everywhere I look I see the madness that was handed to us by others whose guilt is that they were also handed their madness by others still. You see the Taliban as guilty and I see them as victims. So all the rage that I feel, all the sorrow and futility, all the misery I can never do a thing about I have to eat. I can't afford to dump it on other victims. There is nothing I can do but walk up on the cross and be crucified. We are not alone.
JOS: Remember what i said about human emotion in the last thread you escaped from like you will run away from this one?
M: I think it was this thread but not sure.
JOS: While you'd shoot someone out of indifference it takes basic human emotions like hate and fear to make me pull the trigger, who is worse, you or me?
M: The alternative I speak of is not indifference. We are not responsible for who we are. We are largely an accident. The Taliban are profoundly sick and have been made that way by others profoundly sick. But when you illness manifests in the world in the form of harm to the innocent, it is right and proper and obligatory that you be stopped. But the operative word is stopped. There is no reason to hate them for what they are because they had to be what they became. I feel nothing but pity for them. But I would stop them anyway I could as long as they stay on the path where they are determined to hurt others. I don't feel indifference, I feel that to stop them is just and that justice is required where it can be given. What you are doing to stop them is just. I hope you can see that and transcend your rage. Good luck and be safe.
M: My dear Sir, there is deep compassion in your words here, deep sadness, deep pain, deep remorse and deep love. I don't know you but I know me. To bear such feelings causes rage for there is nothing you can do that can ever wipe away what others have had to suffer.
JOS: If you are not for punishing the guilty then so be it, don't talk to me about it though, talk to their mothers, you could do that you know, if you had the fucking guts to join me in hell, then i wouldn't have to and maybe even i could be a nicer less fucked up person, what do you say?
M: I am for punishing the guilty and have searched high and low for who they are. But everywhere I look I see the madness that was handed to us by others whose guilt is that they were also handed their madness by others still. You see the Taliban as guilty and I see them as victims. So all the rage that I feel, all the sorrow and futility, all the misery I can never do a thing about I have to eat. I can't afford to dump it on other victims. There is nothing I can do but walk up on the cross and be crucified. We are not alone.
JOS: Remember what i said about human emotion in the last thread you escaped from like you will run away from this one?
M: I think it was this thread but not sure.
JOS: While you'd shoot someone out of indifference it takes basic human emotions like hate and fear to make me pull the trigger, who is worse, you or me?
M: The alternative I speak of is not indifference. We are not responsible for who we are. We are largely an accident. The Taliban are profoundly sick and have been made that way by others profoundly sick. But when you illness manifests in the world in the form of harm to the innocent, it is right and proper and obligatory that you be stopped. But the operative word is stopped. There is no reason to hate them for what they are because they had to be what they became. I feel nothing but pity for them. But I would stop them anyway I could as long as they stay on the path where they are determined to hurt others. I don't feel indifference, I feel that to stop them is just and that justice is required where it can be given. What you are doing to stop them is just. I hope you can see that and transcend your rage. Good luck and be safe.
You talk about Islam's cancer yet you do nothing about the cancer that has crept into American politics. The president waged an illegal war that has lead to 1million+ death and yet Americans do nothing!
Is that what your American schools tell you to brainwash and justify the war. Even if the above were true, it still doesn't justify war crimes.
They won't walk around unveiled because they have a choice unlike some western countries like France where you aren't allowed to wear veils. There are about 90% of women that wear traditional clothing whic is nothing like a veil. There are about 2% that think the wearing American style clothes is cool. The rest might veils. However they can wear anything they want legally unlike France.
So just because you think it has no place in the modern world you justify illegal wars and war crimes? pathetic hypocrisy. That's not going to happen unless you commit genocide on levels no seen before. It's scary that some people on these forums would gladly do that.
You think Islamic supermacism is dangerous when there is little chance of that happening anytime within the next 300 years. However American superemacism is a real threat. While they may think they are the smartest people on the planet, they are constanly being brainwashed by their media which has led them into believing lies that have killed 1million+ people for no reason. Unlike the idiots in Iran, the idiots in America have the means to commit mass murder and they are already doing it. It's scary that most brainwahshed americans on these forums condone the killing of innocent Iraqis just because they are Iraqis. Fascists!
I'm shocked at you PH....
He advocated actually getting to know the mindset and the reasons why someone would act out against the US in a violent way and you thought that it was brilliant.
What ever happened to the old PH that doesn't care why someone would do something to harm the good ol' US....just bomb the shit out of them already....especially if they are Muslim Middle Easterners?
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
We've already established that you know next to nothing about Afghanistan, Pakistan, or the Taliban; but thanks for proving our assessments correct - again and again - each time you post in this thread...
In terms of the strategic "bigger picture," the complex history of the region, and the Taliban's characterization, BMW is right on the money.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
I have never shared that mindset - you have simply thrown me in with others who speak that way based on my tendency to agree with some of what they say. Don't worry, you're not alone, most folks around here automatically disagree with people based on the posters' name...
I have always made it a point to clarify that our hostilities be directed only at the fanatical minority that is pervading Islam around the world. The Taliban is a prime example of that minority. I also value the role of psychological operations, economic influence, and political diplomacy which coincide with military operations.
However, you will notice that at no point did BMW dismiss the need to destroy the Taliban; he merely advocated a total strategic understanding of all of the players in the region, and did a pretty decent job summing up those players and their roles.
That understanding is key in destroying the Taliban and hindering their efforts to radicalize the region.
So, in truth, I advocate bombing the Taliban straight to hell AND understanding the situation thoroughly while doing so. This will allow us to confront the Taliban from every angle - socially, politically, ideologically, and, of course, tactically.
PS: Afghanistan and Pakistan are not in the Middle East...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter