# Iraq and Afghanistan .

Discussion in 'World Events' started by mike47, Nov 25, 2009.

1. ### StrawDogdisseminated primatemaiaValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,373
IMO and from what I have variously gleaned over many years the Mujahideen is clearly where it all started. Frankensteins monster.
I beg to differ. No problem. :m:
On what grounds do you claim he is a liar?
And Bin Laden is still at large. Can you see the problem with a perceived enemy such as AQ. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives spent and wasted ... for nothing. Oh well, well go after the Taliban then. Uh, thats not working ... lets try Iraq. Oops, bad idea. Pakistan? Perhaps Iran? :m:
You are clearly dishonest or in denial around this issue.
? The Afghan freedom fighters are fighting on Afghan soul to free Afghanistan from the invaders.
Perhaps and regrettably. But then again, US support of a criminal Israel, sanctions causing starvation in Iraq, etc. has cost way more than 3000 lives, thus the US should take a closer look at its own policies for what occurred. And as regards full blown kneejerk military retaliation against innocent Afghans and Iraqis, do you really want to get involved in numbers?
In a nutshell, and verifiable, what exactly is their "ideology"?
AQ, yes, understandably and rightly so, needed to pay for what occurred, but the Taliban, who 99.99999% of US vengeance has been poured upon had nothing, yes, nothing, to do with 9/11. A criminal act, by an extreme Muslim cult, absolutely akin to Aum Shinrikyo.

3. ### mike47BannedBanned

Messages:
2,117
In an interview Former Pakistan President Musharraf said that Tony Blair told him that he would bring him the evidence against Bin laden in two days . When he returned in two days he had no evidence to present and informed him about the start date of the invasion on poor Afghanistan . The US has absolutely no evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 . If they had it they would share it even with the dead let alone the alive......

.

5. ### spidergoatLiddle' Dick TaterValued Senior Member

Messages:
53,966
You don't really need evidence when you have a confession.

7. ### mike47BannedBanned

Messages:
2,117
The confession is a C.I.A tape and NOT Bin Laden's .
The C.I.A attributed many tapes to Bin Laden while they made them for propaganda purposes .

Messages:
53,966

9. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,994
Yes you do.

Especially such a dubiously derived and presented one, with so many ulterior motives floating around.

10. ### mike47BannedBanned

Messages:
2,117
This is the view of billions of people who use their brains around the world .
The Administration account of the events of 9/11 does not fit .
No evidence means no judge will convict : this is the law .

11. ### countezeroRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,590
You want to come out and argue it wasn't bin Laden? Go ahead. Embaress yourself. . .

Your opinion is wrong. Usually is. I've posted source material several times now and have told you where to look. Given your inability to grasp the basic facts of the situation (like Arabs are not Afghans), I can only conclude that you are willing to cover your eyes and your ears in order to advance your anti-American hatred.

Beg all you want. You're still very wrong.

Well, for starters, his accounts of his deeds -- and those of his men -- in the Afghan Soviet War are so grossly blown out of purportion that one can safely call them lies.

I take the accusations of a man who confuses ethnicities and armies with a grain of salt.

You mean the Pashtun insurgents who hide out in Pakistan? The same crowd, along with their friends, are fighting against India, Pakistan and Uzbekistan, too. So calling them Afghan freedom fighters is inaccurate and so off the mark as to not even be helpful.

Had you shown more aptitude and less pure hatred, I'd be willing to discuss US foreign policy with you. As you have not, I am not. And furthermore, your attempt tp shift the arugment to US policy is a rhetorical ploy. You asked me a question, I gave you an answer. Rather than deal with it, you've slithered on to another topic (your favorite game).

I've studied terrorism and radical Islam for the past two years, but anyone with the internet or a newspaper subscription can pick up on the bare bones of what these people believe. They are radical Wahhabis, and men like bin Laden routinely tell you what they believe. I suggest you listen.

As has been pointed out about a trillion times now, there probably would have been no Al Qaeda and no 9/11 without the Taliban, because Al Qaeda were on the run, and the Taliban were the only people who took them in -- took them in and then protected them. So they enabled the attack.

12. ### countezeroRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,590
Post something that shows that billions agree with you.

13. ### StrawDogdisseminated primatemaiaValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,373
I disagree with your sources/conclusion. Simple.
You were there?
The fact remains, the extradition process was not sincerely or exhaustively explored.
No, I mean the Afghan freedom fighters, Afghan nationals. Those who, whatever their ethnicity are resisting the invaders. Those hundreds of angry men that sign up after their families are slaughtered under the mantle of collateral damage. After nine years, there is a LOT of collateral damage. What may once have resembled a civil war has long since shifted to a struggle to evict the invaders. As the Afghan people have done for century upon century. That is why this war cannot be won. :m:
You mean over a million slaughtered Iraqis is not a topic worthy of consideration? But 3000 slaughtered Americans are? :m:
Let me say it simply, the Afghan/Pakistani/Iraqi victims of US aggression, economic and military, before and after 9/11, have every reason to intensely dislike their oppressors. That is not ideology, its common sense.
Bollocks. Pure and simple.

14. ### countezeroRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,590
The problem is not one of sources, but of conclusions based on sources. You offered a conclusion, based on a source, that cannot be justified by that source. Your conclusion, furthermore, is completely ignorant of the reality that is established fact. The Afhan Muj and the Arabs were two completely different groups of people. This is not something open to conjecture.

No. Nor was I "there" when Lincoln was shot, but I know who did and know the basics of what happened. So what's your point?

You continue to posit things as "facts" that are your really opinions. You need to learn the difference. Meanwhile, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml it's clear that the Taliban were making counterdemands in a situation where they had no legitimate or reasonable grounds for doing so.

There is no such thing as Afghan freedom fighters resisting the invaders. There are only Pashtun tribes resisting the US, the Taliban and whatever people decide to join them because of aforementioned collateral damage. However, make no mistake about it. The majority of the Talibs are religious fanatics and Pashtuns and their motivation and goals have nothing to do with "freedom" or anything like it.

No, it's not worthy of consideration, because we were talking about how an ideology provoked America to invade Afghanistan. You're baiting and switching and I'm not playing.

Al Qaeda was thrown out of the Sudan and had nowhere to go. The Saudis were close to getting bin Laden, the Egyptians close to getting Al Zawahiri. Without the sanctuary they found in Afghanistan and the freedom it allowed them to reconstitute their organization, it's not beyond the pale to suggest that the embassy attacks and 9/11 would not have happened. But again, I doubt you actually know any of this history, do you?

15. ### StrawDogdisseminated primatemaiaValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,373
The point is, ones view of truth is necessarily relevant to one`s sympathies.
No, its quite clear and well documented.
As per the Guardian:
The Guardian subsequently points out:
Then why are they fighting US forces? And why are they repeatedly calling for foreign troops to vacate?
An reactive ideology that was arguably, birthed by the aggressive and misplaced ideology of US Imperialism.
A tangled web to be sure, but research has convinced me that US imperialism required an entry into Afghanistan long before 9/11. Disturbingly, 9/11 was not only incredibly convenient, but a large scale invasion that would normally require months of planning, was actioned in under a month.
Some Clinton memorabilia regarding arch foe Bin Laden:
Can you see how dangerous ideologies can be?

Some "easily accessible" clarity around the "Taliban".

Last edited: Dec 11, 2009
16. ### countezeroRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,590
So Booth didn't shoot Lincoln? Facts don't exist? You can define everything, per your political biases? Stalin would have loved you ...

What's documented is that the Taliban refused to hand him over to the US, as ALL of your links show. They said they would hand him over to a Third party. And it's worth wondering ...

Which third party?

Under what terms?

And then, how would the Taliban get bin Laden to leave for trial?

Would they seperate him from his army? Kill the Muslims defending him?

The Taliban are fighting the US because they want the control of the country back and because the US is there. Just as they are fighting Pakistan because they want control of that country and the Pakistanis are there.

So you agree, in part, with Osama? Good company people like you keep, isn't it?

Again, you state errors. There was no large scale invasion of Aghanistan in the wake of 9/11. There were small CIA teams and Special Forces soldiers helicoptered in to assist the Muj. Seriously, read a fucking book. A real book. Shut your internet down, quit reading anti-American, Leftist bilge online and do some real learning. Until then, you're a complete waste of time.

17. ### mike47BannedBanned

Messages:
2,117
According to the New York Times of Friday, guards from the Blackwater private security company took part in secret CIA raids in both Iraq and Afghanistan , citing former employees and intelligence officials .
Blackwater guards notorious for abuses in Iraq specially the killing of civilians . They participated in snatch and grab missions to capture and kill Iraqis and Afghans . Another sad story with the compliments of the US Administration who keeps on chanting freedom, justice and prosperity while in reality tyranny is the golden rule .

Messages:
12,110

~String

19. ### John99BannedBanned

Messages:
22,046
how bad would it be if Iraq and Afghanistan turned out to be productive countries and beneficial to the citizenry? why are people fighting this?

20. ### John99BannedBanned

Messages:
22,046
secondlt, someone asked why no one gets involved in place like Darfur etc. is this a logical question to ask considering?

21. ### mike47BannedBanned

Messages:
2,117
Both Iraq and Afghanistan were sovereign countries and must not be occupied by invaders . Do you like it if Russia or China invade the US and the Americans benefit from their technology ?.
These two nations are very different from the US in religion, culture, language, morality, customs......etc. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is a threat to the security of the strongest nation on earth the USA .

22. ### mike47BannedBanned

Messages:
2,117
I hope the US and NATO will not interfere in Darfur because if they do, they will create more problems, more deaths and they end up stealing the Sudanese oil and resources . Of course they will rush to install military bases and therefore controlling and colonizing the whole country .
I see a simple solution whereas peace keepers are under the UN, the African Union and the Muslim nations because these latters are not colonialists and imperialists .

23. ### countezeroRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,590
Afghanistan has not been a sovereign country for more than two decades.

Bullshit.

Afghanistan was home to the people who killed more than 3,000 Americans. Iraq attempted to kill a US president and constantly fired on US warplanes for more than 10 years. You may view these threats as acceptable and not worthy of retaliation, but they are threats, and as such, they should be acknowledged.