GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

@hamburger,

Thanks for the interesting info. I might add that the wealthy throughout the ME support Muslim terrorist groups. They do so to gain a ticket to paradise (which holds 72 virgins for them) upon death.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

advocate wrote :

Quote:

They do so to gain a ticket to paradise (which holds 72 virgins for them) upon death.

in "certain" parts of the world it's also called "protection money" i understand .
"you pay your dues" and "the boys will protect you" from undue pressure by the competition .
got to live now - "paradise" can wait <GRIN> .

when we briefly visited marocco some years ago , we drove past the protective walls of many residences owned by wealthy arabs who came to visit "for weekends" .
the guide said : "they can find paradise for a weekend undisturbed by nosey police , neighbours and the other 'unwashed' " .
hbg

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Well, wonder no more. The Afghans harbored and gave direct support to terrorists (e.g. bin Laden) who used Afghanistan as a base from which to launch an attack on our country. We then asked them to turn the culprits over to us and they refused. By what bizarre logic do we not have the right to retaliate for a direct military attack on our country? This is not the same thing as some vague support for groups.

Expect a whole lot more "justifiable" attacks on the USA, Brandon, for all the illegal attacks on Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Chile, Vietnam, Cambodia, ... it would be much easier to list the ones that don't "have the right to retaliate" if I could think of one.

And y'all will just have to sit on your hands.

So, what's your point here, that if someone attacks your country, or gives material support and harbor to those who do, you don't have the right to retaliate? I want to be very clear on whether or not this is what you're saying.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

brandon wrote :

Quote:

When the Saudis allow terrorists to use their country as a base from which to plan an attack on us, and then, after the attack, refuse to turn over those responsible, we should indeed consider it an act of war and retaliate militarily.

i guess the saudis must feel quite re-assured that as long as they "only" support the taliban with lots of money they don't have to fear the wrath of the U.S.

i think these few words from "the times of london" might be enough to understand that without the support of the saudis , the taliban and other terrorists wouldn't be able to be nearly as active as they are .

my guess is that the saudis speculate (quite rightly imo) that if they support the taliban they need fear little from them .

Quote:

Yet wealthy Saudis remain the chief financiers of worldwide terror networks. “If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia,” said Stuart Levey, the US Treasury official in charge of tracking terror financing.
.............................................

An analysis by NBC News suggested that the Saudis make up 55% of foreign fighters in Iraq. They are also among the most uncompromising and militant.
..........................................................
And while prominent members of the ruling al-Saud dynasty regularly express their abhorrence of terrorism, leading figures within the kingdom who advocate extremism are tolerated.
..................................................

According to Levey, not one person identified by America or the United Nations as a terrorist financier has been prosecuted by Saudi authorities.

it was always my belief that if one wants to reduce crime and violemce , it's best to go after the "big bosses" who support the gangs . chasing only after the street criminals is seldom successful in rooting out crime ; there always enough street criminals to fill the empty slots (i notice that the taliban seems to have little trouble finding new recruits in afghanistan ) .
hbg

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga :
perhaps you have already read the BBC report :
"Afghanistan's Continuing Misery " .

it can be summed up in six words to describe the life of many afghanis :
Hunger , Cold , Bribery , Corruption , No Jobs .

and we in the west are surprised that more poor afghans are supporting the taliban .
when fathers and mothers see that their children are hungry and cold , they'll do just about anything to try to get them food and keep them warm - and that drives them into the arms of the taliban .
not a very encouraging story !
hbg

link :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7807784.stm

0 Replies

@hamburger,

hamburger wrote:

brandon wrote :

Quote:
When the Saudis allow terrorists to use their country as a base from which to plan an attack on us, and then, after the attack, refuse to turn over those responsible, we should indeed consider it an act of war and retaliate militarily.

i guess the saudis must feel quite re-assured that as long as they "only" support the taliban with lots of money they don't have to fear the wrath of the U.S....

My point is that when someone commits a direct and immediate act of war against our home, we have every right to retaliate. When the support is more oblique, it's a more complicated discussion.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

My point is that when someone commits a direct and immediate act of war against our home, we have every right to retaliate. When the support is more oblique, it's a more complicated discussion.

So now you understand that the countries of the world are lined up to smack you assholes upside the head and they have every right to do so. Iraq and Afghanistan have been added to the list.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
My point is that when someone commits a direct and immediate act of war against our home, we have every right to retaliate. When the support is more oblique, it's a more complicated discussion.

So now you understand that the countries of the world are lined up to smack you assholes upside the head and they have every right to do so. Iraq and Afghanistan have been added to the list.

You're changing the subject. That's a way to avoid losing an argument, and I won't let you get away with it. The subject was whether America has the right to retaliate for an attack. Does it or doesn't it? Yes, or no?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

You're changing the subject. That's a way to avoid losing an argument, and I won't let you get away with it. The subject was whether America has the right to retaliate for an attack. Does it or doesn't it? Yes, or no?

No, I'm not changing the subject. That is the subject. Does any country have the right to retaliate? Yes, but there are rules and laws to follow. Even in this the US hasn't and is therefore guilty of numerous war crimes.

THERE WAS NO REASON TO INVADE IRAQ, NONE WHATSOEVER!

THERE WAS NO REASON TO INVADE AFGHANSTAN, NONE WHATSOEVER!

The Taliban were willing to negotiate but the chickenshit dickhead was all too eager to highlight America's vast arsenal, not to mention pass off some billions of dollars of your money to his friends.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Are you willing to support the equitable reprisal of all the countries that the US has attacked? The list is long.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
You're changing the subject. That's a way to avoid losing an argument, and I won't let you get away with it. The subject was whether America has the right to retaliate for an attack. Does it or doesn't it? Yes, or no?

...THERE WAS NO REASON TO INVADE AFGHANSTAN, NONE WHATSOEVER!...

So, when a country is attacked militarily, and thousands of its civilians - the primary intended targets of the attack - are murdered, it has no right or reason to retaliate, "none whatsoever!" Got it. Thanks for the clarification. You're wrong.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

So, when a country is attacked militarily, and thousands of its civilians - the primary intended targets of the attack - are murdered, it has no right or reason to retaliate, "none whatsoever!" Got it. Thanks for the clarification. You're wrong.

You're twisting things, egregiously, because you don't want to hear the truth and you know that it's coming at you with both barrels.

"thousands", eh, Brandon. Try millions in SE Asia, tens of thousands in Cuba, over a hundred thousand in Iraq, hundreds of thousands in The Philippines, thousands in Nicaragua, thousands in El Salvador, thousands in [name any number of South American countries], ... .

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:

So, when a country is attacked militarily, and thousands of its civilians - the primary intended targets of the attack - are murdered, it has no right or reason to retaliate, "none whatsoever!" Got it. Thanks for the clarification. You're wrong.

You're twisting things, egregiously, because you don't want to hear the truth and you know that it's coming at you with both barrels.

"thousands", eh, Brandon. Try millions in SE Asia, tens of thousands in Cuba, over a hundred thousand in Iraq, hundreds of thousands in The Philippines, thousands in Nicaragua, thousands in El Salvador, thousands in [name any number of South American countries], ... .

None of which has anything to do with whether America was justified in retaliating for a military attack on its population. You say it wasn't. I say it was. You're wrong.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

none of the 9/11 attackers came from afghanistan - none of the money came from afghanistan - yet , the poorest of the poor (the afghanis) are punished for something for which they bear no responsibility .

it is well known where the attackers came from and who financed them - yet those governments are not held to account .

something strange going on imo .

btw : it was not a MILITARY attack .
hbg

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.

How would you apply this to the present situation in Israel & Palestine?

0 Replies

O'George, you're obviously ignorant of history--you must be an American.

Oh . . . sorry . . . wrong thread.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

O'George, you're obviously ignorant of history--you must be an American.

There's a great deal of truth in that.

0 Replies

Your buddy fountofwidom is waiting for you at the playground.

1 Reply

@hamburger,

Quote:

yet those governments are not held to account .

Nor is the US held to account for the numerous war crimes it has committed. In order for there to be justice, in order for terrorism to be reduced or eliminated, all acts of terror have to be dealt with.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

What is it in your makeup that causes you to leap to display your ignorance, Set.

2 Replies

@JTT,

What is it about your alleged expertise in language which causes you to leap to misuse the word ignorance?

Fountofwisdom, as he calls himself, accused O'George of ignorance of history, and then remarked that he must be an American. That's FoW's MO. I was making a joke to O'George (which was none of your goddamned business) based on that, when you showed up to display your ignorance. Your comment on O'George was egregious, but if you actually consider him to be ignorant of history, then i suggest that you tell him so, outright, and don't try to tag along on a post of mine. Leave me out of it.

0 Replies

GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know