24
   

GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2009 12:38 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

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


A good candidate for the ultimate example of 'projection'.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2009 12:48 pm
Amen.

(So JTT is one of your good buddies, huh?)
0 Replies
 
Fountofwisdom
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2009 01:39 pm
I think the problem is quite simple: there are world bodies for solving disputes but certain despicable pariah states refuse to join them.
The U.S.A for example. To draw attention away from the fact that they can't find Osama Bin Laden, they go around invading random countries. Only the American electorate believe that the Saudi bombers come form Iraq or Afghanistan. Iran will be next, probably due to typo.
200 of the "high value targets" of hardened terrorists taken to Guantanamo were under 16.
In trails based on Salem. the detainees were torured til they confessed.
In fact all the detainees have confessed to 9-11, shooting Jfk, Kidnapping the Lindbergh baby and running numbers.
America has no respect for its own law. Let alone international law. America has a track record unblemished by success, when it comes to foreign policy: except in the movies.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2009 02:04 pm
@Fountofwisdom,
Fountofwisdom wrote:

I think the problem is quite simple: there are world bodies for solving disputes but certain despicable pariah states refuse to join them.
The U.S.A for example. To draw attention away from the fact that they can't find Osama Bin Laden, they go around invading random countries. Only the American electorate believe that the Saudi bombers come form Iraq or Afghanistan. Iran will be next, probably due to typo.
200 of the "high value targets" of hardened terrorists taken to Guantanamo were under 16.
In trails based on Salem. the detainees were torured til they confessed.
In fact all the detainees have confessed to 9-11, shooting Jfk, Kidnapping the Lindbergh baby and running numbers.
America has no respect for its own law. Let alone international law. America has a track record unblemished by success, when it comes to foreign policy: except in the movies.


If your intent is to display your ignorance and superficiality then you have succeeded.

The "world bodies for solving disputes" didn't prevent the massacres in the heart of Europe in Sarajevo. They haven't been successful in dealing with the genocide in Sudan or the continuing civil wars in Congo, Rwanda or Uganda, and they haven't been successful in dealing with issues in Palestine or the Middle East.

As for the rest of your mindless statement - there are no answers to your incoherent ramblings.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2009 02:07 pm
@georgeob1,
Perhaps if the most powerful countries in the world recognized the legitimacy of said bodies, and supported efforts to solve the problems in question, we would find them to be more effective, don't you think?

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2009 02:29 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Indeed. And when pigs grow wings they'll be able to fly.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2009 03:08 pm
@georgeob1,
The geneticists are no doubt working on that as we speak.

As the pre-eminent political and military power in the world, do you not believe that it would behoove us to lead these institutions and bend them to some form of our will - rather then rail against their ineffectiveness?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2009 07:43 pm
Afghanistan is a good place to test new military hardware. Let us not look a gift horse in the mouth.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 12:11 am
@georgeob1,
Gob1 expectorates. Same ole same ole.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 09:33 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

I notice you haven't answered my reply to this. One characteristic of people who habitually use bad logic is to try to introduce additional topics to obfuscate their bad logic on the subject under discussion. I might be willing to discuss American involvement in countries besides Afghanistan in another thread on that topic, but not until this one is resolved with you in this thread. We were attacked in our home and our civilians were targeted as the primary, intended victims. When you say we had no right to retaliate, you are simply wrong. Everyone recognizes the right to retaliate for a military attack, particularly for a sneak attack on civilians. So, to be clear, you maintain that we had no right to retaliate for 9/11, right?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 09:37 am
@hamburger,
hamburger wrote:

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

Al Qaeda were harbored and supported by Afghanistan. We asked the ruling Taliban to turn them over to us for prosecution and they refused. That makes them accessories. An attack using weapons is most certainly a military attack. If you like, I can instead call it a physically violent attack. It is universally recognized that people have the right to retaliate for a physically violent attack on their home. This is elementary. Go on using obviously false logic and I will continue to correct it.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 09:54 am
Quote:
GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN


No, not at this time.
The US military is currently strengthening it's presence in AFG - think of it as a SURGE Cool
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 10:11 am
@Brandon9000,
brandon wrote :

Quote:
An attack using weapons is most certainly a military attack. If you like, I can instead call it a physically violent attack. It is universally recognized that people have the right to retaliate for a physically violent attack on their home.


- imo one can call the 9/11 attack an attack by terrorists or rogue elements - neither of which i condone !!!

- if someone invades my home and dies in the process , i doubt any court would sanction me to invade homes in which the invader never resided , destroy the homes and kill the inhabitants .

- what do afghanis (includung women and children) living in far away villages - who have not even heard of the U.S. - have to do with the 9/11 terrorists ?

- why has NO attempt been made to go after the financiers and supporters of these terrorist groups ?
these individuals and groups are well known , are they not (i am sure you have read what U.S. governement spokespeople have said ) ?

- what specifically might be the difficulties to go after the financiers of the terrorist groups ?
i am reasonable sure these financiers do not live in afghanistan .

- i do not post here to approve of what the 9/11 attackers did . i hope i have made that abundantly clear already - but want to restate it .

- don't hesitate to post your corrections .
hbg







Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 12:02 pm
@hamburger,
hamburger wrote:

brandon wrote :

Quote:
An attack using weapons is most certainly a military attack. If you like, I can instead call it a physically violent attack. It is universally recognized that people have the right to retaliate for a physically violent attack on their home.


...

- what do afghanis (includung women and children) living in far away villages - who have not even heard of the U.S. - have to do with the 9/11 terrorists ?

...

hbg

Of your comments, only this one is relevant to our argument about the invasion of Afghanistan.

The purpose of invasion was to remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to Al-Qaeda. On September 20, 2001, in an address to a joint session of Congress, President Bush demanded that the Taliban government of Afghanistan deliver al-Qaeda leaders located in Afghanistan to the United States authorities. The Taliban government refused, stating that bin Laden was a guest in their country. They were accessories to the attack on our country.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 12:09 pm


Go in and hit them hard.

Old US main battle rifles are being modernized and re-issued for use in AFG.

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5403/115492wu8.jpg

0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 09:40 am
BATTLE GROUND - WAR RUGS FROM AFGHANISTAN
..........................................................................................
canada's textile museum has aquired a collection of "war rugs" from afghanistan .
since it is common for weawers to reproduce scenes from daily life , afghan weavers from different villages have portrayed such scenes .
they are all very beautiful in their art work , yet showing the gruesome reality of war for civilians

the exhibition is currently being shown in toronto but will become a travelling exhibit .
hbg

CLICK TO ENLARGE >>>

http://www.textilemuseum.ca/exhibitions/
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 09:50 am
@hamburger,


Nice tight weaving and of good quality. We rate them with a 4 out of 5.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 10:21 am
interesting comments about carpets from afghanistan but also the history and geopolitical realities of afghanistan .
hbg

Quote:
Tribal Carpets of Afghanistan
To write effectively and intelligently about carpets from the tribal areas of Afghanistan and the former central Asian States of the USSR would require many years of experience and personal knowledge of these carpet making regions. Unfortunately, we don't qualify in any of these areas, but I do have a number of reference books written by experts in the field- and the following is a compilation of observations from these volumes.
This clause will only serve to help put the background of the carpet making areas in central Asia in some perspective, and to help identify some of the more recognizable afghan rug designs and characteristics of carpets from these areas. When one considers the source of carpets from Afghanistan and the Former States of the USSR one must realize that the tribal peoples of the mountains really dont comprehend or honour modern geopolitical borders. Specific tribes exist on both sides and across the modern borders as if they didnt exist. The Baluchi tribes for example, extend from Eastern Iran through Western Afghanistan and into Pakistan. Similarly, the Turkoman tribes extend all across the northern borders.
Herat, in the Western part of Afghanistan, has a history of over two thousand five hundred years and was once occupied by Alexander the Great, and subsequently invaded by Mongols led by Genghis Khan and then Tamerlan in the 13th century. Herat was considered part of the Persian Empire, and the Persian influence in carpet making in Herat is still seen.


http://www.bukhara-carpets.com/making/afghanistan-tribal-carpets.html
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 10:35 am
@hamburger,
Great carpets - do you sell these?

Can I get one with this image overlaying an American flag?

http://www.athenswater.com/images/M21A5_Crazy-Horse_EBR.jpg
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 12:26 pm
@H2O MAN,
How apropos that would be.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 09:47:06