The Christian Wrong is waging wars on Muslims, not the other way around.

[JohnOfSheffield]

No shit, but the OP is clueless. I'm addressing his red herring. All this stems from the region being a main source of the lifeblood of modern civilization. Most of what we see now stems back to securing British Petroleum's assets, which didn't give a shit about religion. We install dictators or remove leaders (usually) for pragmatic reasons. We act for strategic purposes to secure resources and extend political and military influence, just as every other dominant nation in the history of the world has. To point at "religion" is to dumb as to be beyond credible. If people are this ignorant of how the world works no wonder we're in deep shit all the time.

Yeah the OP is a retard, to argue otherwise would be a problem BUT, while we fucked it up, i am of the opinion that we should just stay the fuck out now, we try to fix it and we only make it worse.

At least that is IME.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

You don't really do what you say you do, do you? How can someone in you position not know about that "Great Leader" Churchill screwed Iran with his protection of BP and working with the US to overthrow a secular and democratically elected leader. He was just as evil as Bush was in his part. This whole friggin mess can be laid right at his feet.

Now I'm done arguing with your stupid ass logic. You think Tony Blair got people involved because God called him to battle.


BTW, you are easily manipulated. I hope you know that.

For the FUCKING LOVE OF GOD READ MY FIRST POST INSTEAD OF DEFLECTING!

I'm talking NOT about fucking up Iraq or Iran, i'm talking about demonizing a group of people based on religion and heritage, something which you would have KNOWN if you could take the fucking hint like a good little twat and read my post.

Look, i'm fairly sure you kinda smile about all the insults and we both know there isn't any major harm meant but serisously, just read my first post and try to understand it, all other posts are based on your misunderstanding on clearly written words, so pretty fucking please, shut the fuck up and go and read that post, ok, hun?

 

[hal2kilo]

Well let's look at this. Afghanistan was already invaded. Do you know why that happened? I wonder.

Civilians are being killed, but that's not the prime target. That is a very unfortunate consequence of the situation, but if the goal was to kill civilians, why aren't they all dead? I mean the US could lay waste to most of the population in short order. Hasn't happened has it? No, the intended target is the Taliban. Now the Taliban are in the region and they happen to be Muslim. They also have the tendency to torture and intentionally murder civilians who aren't a threat, but to instill fear so they can operate unopposed. Now let's play your game. The Taliban are Muslims, so Muslims are slaughtering and torturing people with intent. So Muslims are terrorists. You support terrorists and want to see the Afghanistan population enslaved by them.

Your line of reasoning isn't very good. Your best bet is to drop out of this thread, take your lumps and think next time.

You do realize that the Taliban started from the leftovers of the Mujahadeen that we supported to thwart the Russian occupation of Afganistan.

Talk about your consequences.

 

[Craig234]

No shit, but the OP is clueless. I'm addressing his red herring. All this stems from the region being a main source of the lifeblood of modern civilization. Most of what we see now stems back to securing British Petroleum's assets, which didn't give a shit about religion. We install dictators or remove leaders (usually) for pragmatic reasons. We act for strategic purposes to secure resources and extend political and military influence, just as every other dominant nation in the history of the world has. To point at "religion" is to dumb as to be beyond credible. If people are this ignorant of how the world works no wonder we're in deep shit all the time.

I'll attack the OP's points, but you sound bad here - 'realpolitik' evil.

Any wrongs, atrocities, killing, injustice done, file it under nice sounding phrases, 'pragmatic reasons', 'strategic purposes to secure resources'.

You're an apologist for evil - 'everyone does it'.

And anyone who points out it's evil and should not be done, you attack them as 'ignorant', not understanding anything about the moral issues.

This is the same amoral/immoral approach people like Henry Kissinger had, doing things like deciding we had 'interests' with Indonesia, so that it was ok for Ford to secretly give them US approval to use the arms we gave them which under the law were limited to defensive use, to invade their neighbor East Timor where over 200,000 were killed, and lie to Congress and the public they had done it. They were just 'securing US interests' letting Indonesia 'secure their interests'.

And when a guy breaks in your home tonight, rapes your wife and kills you, feel good he's just pragmatically securing his interests.

You are espousing an ideology of evil, where bullets are removed of blood and turned into bureaucratese, violence is not only rationalized but demanded. The gains from the violence are the justification for the violence, the ends justifying the means, the very gains of loot or increased power making the violence not criminal but obligatory and not wrong.

The worst figure in the world would not be judged by you for his harms, but for how efficient he was at the use of violence increasing his wealth and power.

Your condemnation would be for those who harmed for no gain. It was 'inefficient'.

You are a monster here.

And spare me your strawman response that the alternative is countering Hitler by throwing flowers at him. It's quite possible to pursue pragmatic policies where others are treated much more fairly, without putting them all under dictators who use torture and political killings to prevent justice for the people to protect our interests.

 

[Craig234]

You do realize that the Taliban started from the leftovers of the Mujahadeen that we supported to thwart the Russian occupation of Afganistan.

Talk about your consequences.

The roots go back much further - the book The Devil's Game lays out over a century of English and later American use and creation of religious fanatics to get the people to turn against their own governments and defeat the nationalists for their own gain. It predated Lawrence of Arabia, but he's an example as he led a group there to do just that with promises, and claimed his own government betrayed them. Roots of things like the Muslim Brotherhood go back to England building it up for their own use as I recall.

Divide and Conquer. This is why the Brits felt they could advise neophytes like Bush on the strategy, they had been there a long time creating these organizations.

BTW, while you're right the Taliban come from remnants of the Mujahadeen, to be clear they were a faction in it and there were battles with the moderate factions - the Taliban won.

The US just didn't really care, and in fact repotedly the Bush administration had sent the Taliban $50 in aid in the year before 9/11.

 

[Craig234]

Let's not pretend that the US, UK, France and the Netherlands didn't fuck the region as much as we possibly could.

Ok?

You aren't from the US, so I suspect you don't get how bad the Americans' history is IMO on this.

The popular version would say:

"After cars were invented, the US needed more and more oil, which we bought from the Middle East. We had to deal with some nasty people sometimes. In order to protect their own interests for high oil prices, in the 70's they made OPEC and we have had to pay that since then. They cut off oil briefly causing us to have gas lines.

They're a Muslim region with some extremists who attack us. They have mostly dictatorships.

England is like us and has a similar story as our ally also buying oil.

The end."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You are a monster here.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you misunderstand just what I mean. I understand 'realpolitik'. I understand just why Churchill did what he did. I understand how Hitler, Stalin and others came to be where they were.

I'd suggest two things,

First, to understand does not mean endorse. When describing a malignancy it does no good to discuss it's societal implication if the immediate context is it's removal.

Second and I know you have taken issue with this, I like to see things as much as they are because that's closer to what passes for truth in the real world. There is a saying that "Truth is Beauty", but I can tell you that Truth can be an ugly bastard no one wants. That being the case I attempt to present the world as it is, not as I would like it to be when describing things like Ajax. I hope you note I never approved of it, nor Iraq.