Interfering in Iran? They are supporting them. Thats not interfering. Once again, in English, as you know it. In which country of the Middle East did the Russians: 1. topple an elected government 2. send death squads 3. have a lengthy occupation? tick tock tick tock
Let's take as a rule of thumb that failure to attempt to kill at least 10% of a given demographic group reveals a lack of genocidal goal or motive. That's a very low bar - we err on the side of favoring sensationalistic description. So you would need some kind of evidence that the US has been attempting to kill - purposefully setting out to kill - something like 4 million Iraqis. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the US military, I think we can all agree that it wouldn't have taken even just the initial invasion force five years to do that.
Just because you changed the paradigm to suite your prejudice, doesn't change the facts, the Russian, Soviet or Federalist, have been interfering in middle east politics since 1948, when they supported the Israelis, and helped them establish Israel. You use examples from all over the world of U.S. involvement and intervention in your answers, so why am I restricted to only the middle east? The Paradigm is Russian involvement and interference in other countries, across the globe, and that include the middle east as well. Weapons, million of tons of weapons, to originations that Soviet/Federalist, Russian thought would prove useful to their objectives and best interest. Tic Toc Tic Toc.... suide bombers finnal
You ask for Soviet/Russian interfearence and I have provided many, even in the middle east, just because they weren't sucessful doesn't mean there wasn't interference. You just don't want to accept yor own paradigm. What I love is probably their most successful adventure establishing Israel.
Interference means interfering with the self determination of the people. Like sodomising kids in front of parents and beating people to death in torture prisons while bombing the country. Let me know when you find evidence that Russians did this in the Middle East.
Changing the Paradigm, again, you've lost. Just like whe you had to come to America, to get a education, that couldn't be provide to you in your own hell hole country.
Its your paradigm, I'm merely asking you to back it up. I gave you examples of what I consider interference in a people's country.
So you cannot find a single instance where Russia forced a dictator onto any ME country then? What a surprise. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Now try finding this: In which country of the Middle East did the Americans: 1. topple an elected government 2. send death squads 3. have a lengthy occupation? And how did this affect the self determination of the people? This should be easier.
At US hands ? That would be more than twice the highest independent violent death estimate for the whole invasion and occupation, at everybody's hands including Turkey's. And it was a negative criterion - you have to get over at least that low bar to be even considered for a label like genocide. Other criteria still need meeting - unless you want to include the Indian government of the capitalist makeover in your short list of genocidal maniac operations. But if you have any evidence or argument for mass killing by the US on that scale, let's have it.
Diamond: Source? And what means of resistance do they favour? I could understand if they supported honourable insurgent tactics against the occupying forces, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that Afghani civilians support the targeting of Afghani civilians, civilian infrastructure, and the use of civilians as human shields by the insurgents. Non-sequitur. Simply because someone supports the withdrawal of foreign troops does not mean that they support the killing of their own civilians. But the targeting of civilians appears to be a routine tactic employed by the insurgency. All insurgents are not equal, I understand this. But these terrorist activities are for more frequent than you would have us believe, as is made clear from the Human Rights Watch article. Hell, initially you were claiming that insurgents didn't even hide behind civilians. SAM won't give a straight answer because she's the queen of evasion. However, everything she says in regards to this topic alludes to the fact that she does not condemn the terrorists for their actions, apparently because they are resisting foreign occupation. In otherwords if you're resisting occupation anything goes, even the targeting of your own civilians. But of course, S.A.M will never have the guts to openly admit this, although she implies it. Why? Because then she's a terrorist sympathiser, and loses any credibility she may have had on this forum. Not that she had much credibility to begin with. If indeed the accusations leveled against S.A.M are lies, then it's a very simple thing for S.A.M to simply set us straight. I've asked her a very simple question over and over in order to clarify her stance on the issue, to no avail. Hatred and bigotry are S.A.M's cloak and dagger.
WHEN DID I SAY KILLING CIVILIANS IS JUSTIFIED? If you cannot provide evidence I expect an apology from you. I already discussed this. You are trying to imply I support something which I do not. This is dishonest. Please argue the issue at hand. Criminals are criminals. The resistance are those who fight foreign troops and native puppets. Again, read above. You have yet to provide this information from a legitimate source. I'm asking you to prove your claims. You say that, not her. SAM openly denies terrorism, she stated that before. All Muslims oppose terrorism because it is against the religion of Islam. By making false charges against her, you tarnish your own credibility. She has. Ask her straight without assuming her position beforehand and you will get your answers. In essence, if you are rude with someone and presuppose their views, they will not be kind toward you. That's just common sense though.
DiamondHearts: You didn't? And I never made the claim that you did. What the fuck are you on about? You claimed that the majority of the Afghani civilians support the resistance, and then to support your assertion you pointed out that: "The major community, the Pathans, are almost 90% in favor of the withdrawal of foreign troops and the unnecessary destruction of their homeland" I then responded with the observation that simply because an overwhelming majority of Afghani civilians (in one community) support the withdrawal of foreign troops is in no way an indication that they support the insurgents, nor the tactics employed by the insurgents. Essentially, you were committing a non-sequitur logic fallacy. So yeah, I suggest you learn to read, and keep your accusations of dishonesty to yourself. So now you're redefining the resistance to fit your rosy fantasy perceptions. The resistance include insurgents who fight foreign troops and native puppets, as well as insurgents who target civilians, utilise civilians as human shields, and target civilian infrastructure. You can't just ignore the consistently bad behaviour of the insurgents when it suits you to do so. That's, well, dishonest. Again, I repeat in dismay: What the fuck? I've sourced both the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, who condemn particular tactics employed by the insurgents in Afghanistan, which include the intentional targeting of civilians, the use of civilians as human shields, and the targeting of civilian infrastructure. I see now that like S.A.M, you're willfully obtuse and blatantly dishonest. No, sorry, S.A.M IS implying that. I suggest you re-read her cryptic remarks. You might want to start with the bit where she exonerates the terrorists by shifting all of the blame back onto the United States. As I stated earlier, the U.S.A is a meddling superpower which has a hell of a lot to answer for, but they still aren't responsible for the behaviour of terrorists. Does she? Then why hasn't she simply done so on this thread, instead of continually evading my very simple question and responding with cryptic remarks? In case you've forgotten, my question was this: "Why is it OK for Afghani insurgents to kill civilians, but not for NATO to do likewise?" Now, if S.A.M were indeed staunchly against terrorism, she would respond with something along the lines of: "It's not OK for Afghani insurgents to kill civilians. Quite the contrary, it's utterly disgraceful and cowardly, and they must be held responsible for their crimes against humanity." But she hasn't. Instead she's spouted crap like "How many suicide bombs were there prior to U.S intervention?" I might as well ask how many black eyes my wife had prior to her burning my dinner, or how many bullets my next door neighbour's kids had in their skulls prior to their father belittling me. But you're welcome to prove me wrong, Diamond. If she has indeed condemned the Afghani insurgents who employ terroristic activities, then by all means, quote her as having done so. This is a wonderful opportunity to show me up as (at best) mistaken, or (at worst), dishonest. I've asked her straight, repeatedly. She hasn't responded with a concise, straight to the point answer. She's had many chances to set me straight by simply and empathetically stating "Yes, I do condemn insurgents who employ terrorist tactics!" S.A.M is monumentally dishonest, the very vision of intellectual cowardice. When caught with her pants down, she tries to change the topic, usually by attacking the interrogator and the history of his nation. Well, many people on this forum has wised up to her deceit, and are fed up with it. It's time for her to act with integrity, or suffer the consequences. Plazma has protected her deceitful ass for a while now, but nothing lasts. And while we're on the subject of S.A.M. She's a disgrace to the Islamic community. I lived with over half a dozen Muslims from Indonesia and Malaysia, to as far as Pakistan and Lebanon. And none of them attempted to exonerate terrorists by pointing to the behaviour of the West. Sure, they aren't fond of the West, and they complain about Islamo-phobia. But at the end of the day, they are quite willing (even eager) to acknowledge that they don't support insurgents who employ terrorist tactics, who target their own and foreign civilians.
No one here supports the murder of innocent civilians. By trying to imply that SAM or I advocate this is intellectually dishonest. The resistance is legitimate, and does not include those who murder and kill civilians, any Afghani will tell you this. Those who kill civilians do not belong to any religion, nationality, or resistance, they are criminals simply. I'm simply pointing out what is obvious. You, and others who wish to tarnish the name of SAM and other Muslims on this forum, have nothing to stand on besides lies, manipulation, and fabrication. Besides engaging in personal attacks, please debate the issues at hand. You still have not provided a link any source that resistance fighters in Afghanistan hide behind civilians during firefights. Please provide a link, otherwise withdraw this point.
