Muslim Flag-burners in London.

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by Elder
but not on American targets.

Quite a few happened in Iraq, but nevermind...

Originally posted by Elder
Remind me, how many years was the US in Japan and germany after WW2? Right, many...

But how long will you guys be willing to fork out the taxes to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Anyway, I saw you post something about reading up on the Middle East. If you are looking at something on Afghanistan specifically, then I highly recommend 'The Sewing Circles of Herat' by Christina Lamb. She is a journalist who covered the years when they were trying to repel the Soviets, and returns there later after 9/11 to encounter many of her 'minders' from the first stint who have joined the Taliban.
It is a good read because she has no political agenda to push other than the fact she is a woman in a patriarchal society (not that she really focuses on that herself, just that it influences how she sees things and that makes it all the more interesting), plus she throws in liberal doses of Afghan history without turning it into a dense and dry treatise.

 

[panxoman]

Originally posted by Elder
The goal was for America not to be attacked again, so far, so good.

Only America allies have been attacked and american people living outside the USA. Still you think so far, so good?

do you really think you live in a safe box that isolates and protects you from the rest of the world? hearing some americans, it seems the rest of the world that has to be protected from them

F*ck the bloody muslim terrorists and F*ck those bloody american war lovers

 

[PhiLLer]

Now this is the exact American attitude that pisses people off. "The goal was for America not to be attacked again, so far, so good."
This comment just reeks of pure arrogance, as long as America doesn't get attacked in their own backyard they don't care what happens to other country, again, as long as it's not the Americans that get attacked.
And let's face it, the only reason the Americans are so keen on getting their "close allies" involved in this mess is so they don't have to take 100% of the responsibility from any deaths or other misfortunes that may occur there.

To come back to an earlier point, sure enough America had to do something after 9/11, the American people and the of course the people who lost relatives on 9/11 wanted something to be done but even they are doubting the goverment now, isn't this a sign of the goverment being out of touch with its own people?
Say what you want but Afghanista and Osama bin Laden were merely a "must" for the goverment, if it was up to them they wouldn't have bothered with it and moved on to Iraq straight away but obviously their intensions would have been too obvious which is also the exact reason why all the focus (in terms of briefings, news coverage, troops) is on Iraq and not Afghanistan.

 

[JTNY]

Afghanistan is in just as much turmoil, as Iraq is, and have been screwed again.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
Quite a few happened in Iraq, but nevermind...

Iraq is a warzone, so I expect it to happen.



But how long will you guys be willing to fork out the taxes to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Considering how huge our budget is, nobody will really notice if our taxpayer money is going over there. And actually, Americans are usually willing to give money for noble causes, such as rebuilding a country like afghanistan.

Anyway, I saw you post something about reading up on the Middle East. If you are looking at something on Afghanistan specifically, then I highly recommend 'The Sewing Circles of Herat' by Christina Lamb. She is a journalist who covered the years when they were trying to repel the Soviets, and returns there later after 9/11 to encounter many of her 'minders' from the first stint who have joined the Taliban.

[/B]

Thanks for the info on the book. I am going to look for it on Amazon, because I doubt it's my local bookstore. But it sounds interesting!

Thanks again.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by PhiLLer
Now this is the exact American attitude that pisses people off. "The goal was for America not to be attacked again, so far, so good."
This comment just reeks of pure arrogance, as long as America doesn't get attacked in their own backyard they don't care what happens to other country, again, as long as it's not the Americans that get attacked.
And let's face it, the only reason the Americans are so keen on getting their "close allies" involved in this mess is so they don't have to take 100% of the responsibility from any deaths or other misfortunes that may occur there.

To come back to an earlier point, sure enough America had to do something after 9/11, the American people and the of course the people who lost relatives on 9/11 wanted something to be done but even they are doubting the goverment now, isn't this a sign of the goverment being out of touch with its own people?
Say what you want but Afghanista and Osama bin Laden were merely a "must" for the goverment, if it was up to them they wouldn't have bothered with it and moved on to Iraq straight away but obviously their intensions would have been too obvious which is also the exact reason why all the focus (in terms of briefings, news coverage, troops) is on Iraq and not Afghanistan.

First of all, the first goal of any government is to protect their OWN people, not the worlds people. I am sorry if that sounds arrogant, but stopping bombings and terrorists acts within our own borders is key number 1. It is YOUR governments job to protect YOU from terrorist bombings within your county, NOT the United States's job. To me, you sound arrogant for not knowing such a simple fact.

I certainly care what happens in other countries as far as terrorism goes. The bombings in Madrid, Bali and elswhere made me sick, and made me even more firm in my belief that terrorists need to be shot dead where they stand... no more of this police action **** because it's worthless. Take Germany and their handling of the 9/11 terrorism cases that has led to 2 people being let out of jail... one being the roomate of Atta. Great job Germany...

And I would be interested in finding the evidence that America is not behind the invasion of Afghanistan anymore. Iraq, perhaps, Afghanistan, I bet you get 70 percent or more in favor of what we did there. They are two separate cases.

And when you say things like "we would have skipped afghanistan and bin Laden and went to Iraq first if it wasn't so obvious" you really show your ignorance. Afghanistan and Iraq wasn't a MUST for anyone before 9/11. After 9/11, that obviously changed.

 

[PhiLLer]

First of all, the first goal of any government is to protect their OWN people, not the worlds people. I am sorry if that sounds arrogant, but stopping bombings and terrorists acts within our own borders is key number 1. It is YOUR governments job to protect YOU from terrorist bombings within your county, NOT the United States's job. To me, you sound arrogant for not knowing such a simple fact.

Fair enough but in that case the US Goverment shouldn't invade any country they like for fabricated reasons and then sit back and not really care when other countries (shouldn't the US help protect their allies the way the allies back up the US?) get attacked with the attitude of "as long as it's not us".

I certainly care what happens in other countries as far as terrorism goes. The bombings in Madrid, Bali and elswhere made me sick, and made me even more firm in my belief that terrorists need to be shot dead where they stand... no more of this police action **** because it's worthless. Take Germany and their handling of the 9/11 terrorism cases that has led to 2 people being let out of jail... one being the roomate of Atta. Great job Germany...

Agree 100%. Seen it going on for too long back in Northern Ireland and it's never going to stop unless you give them some of their own medicine. Although with islamic extremists that might be a bit useless since they are willing to die for their cause.

And I would be interested in finding the evidence that America is not behind the invasion of Afghanistan anymore. Iraq, perhaps, Afghanistan, I bet you get 70 percent or more in favor of what we did there. They are two separate cases.

Afghanistan was justfied in that all connections led to Osama bin Laden and all of his connections led to Afghanistan. Having said that, why didn't they attack Saudi Arabia which is where bin Laden and most of the hijackers are originally from and where I'm sure there are Al-Qaeda camps.

And when you say things like "we would have skipped afghanistan and bin Laden and went to Iraq first if it wasn't so obvious" you really show your ignorance. Afghanistan and Iraq wasn't a MUST for anyone before 9/11. After 9/11, that obviously changed.

Iraq was most certainly a MUST way before 9/11. This is what Bush was building up to before he became president and Iraq was always going to top his agenda in terms of foreign policy for reasons we all know.
Invading Afghanistan, fair enough but there was no need to invade Iraq, fair enough Saddam might be a good reason in some people's minds yet what about North Korea, Libia (before they decided to team up with the West and give up their nuclear weapons program) and many more such nations. There was and still is no link with Al-Qaeda and Saddam and Saddam never had WMD's (or weapons that could be launched within 45 minutes) the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda just started now, now we are seeing Al-Qaeda faithfulls heading into Iraq to try and kill as many people over there as possible.
And the whole 9/11 investigation is starting to prove this, that Iraq was topping Bush's agenda whereas Al-Qaeda wasn't "quite as urgent" as Iraq, Bush's senior ex-anti terrorist adviser, Richarde Clarke, even mentioned this and soon we'll see the release of the classified memo which might shed some more light onto were the Bush administration's priorities really laid pre 9/11.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by PhiLLer
Fair enough but in that case the US Goverment shouldn't invade any country they like for fabricated reasons and then sit back and not really care when other countries (shouldn't the US help protect their allies the way the allies back up the US?) get attacked with the attitude of "as long as it's not us".

I bet the US helps more than anyone even knows, just as countries help the US more than anyone knows. The CIA gave France a tip this past week that led to the shutting down of some trains. I think behind the scenes, there is alot more going on that anyone realizes.



Agree 100%. Seen it going on for too long back in Northern Ireland and it's never going to stop unless you give them some of their own medicine. Although with islamic extremists that might be a bit useless since they are willing to die for their cause.

I agree with you about the Muslim extemist part. That is the hardest thing to deal with in this whole issue... how do you stop someone who is already willing to die? These guys are crazy.



Afghanistan was justfied in that all connections led to Osama bin Laden and all of his connections led to Afghanistan. Having said that, why didn't they attack Saudi Arabia which is where bin Laden and most of the hijackers are originally from and where I'm sure there are Al-Qaeda camps.

Would you be in favor of attacking Saudi Arabia? Or perhaps Germany because that is where many of them planned the attack? I understand where you are coming from, but as we all know, the US and Saudi Arabia have "Special" ties... namely oil. The double standard drives me crazy as well...



Iraq was most certainly a MUST way before 9/11. This is what Bush was building up to before he became president and Iraq was always going to top his agenda in terms of foreign policy for reasons we all know.
Invading Afghanistan, fair enough but there was no need to invade Iraq, fair enough Saddam might be a good reason in some people's minds yet what about North Korea, Libia (before they decided to team up with the West and give up their nuclear weapons program) and many more such nations. There was and still is no link with Al-Qaeda and Saddam and Saddam never had WMD's (or weapons that could be launched within 45 minutes) the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda just started now, now we are seeing Al-Qaeda faithfulls heading into Iraq to try and kill as many people over there as possible.
And the whole 9/11 investigation is starting to prove this, that Iraq was topping Bush's agenda whereas Al-Qaeda wasn't "quite as urgent" as Iraq, Bush's senior ex-anti terrorist adviser, Richarde Clarke, even mentioned this and soon we'll see the release of the classified memo which might shed some more light onto were the Bush administration's priorities really laid pre 9/11.

Ok. Iraq was on the "map" going back to Bill Clinton. It wasn't a Bush conspiracy. You have to remember that Saddam tried to assassinate a US President, and fired on US jets patrolling the no fly zone on a constant basis. Firing on the jets was already a violation of any UN resolution. He had many connections to terrorism, mainly in Israel but also had a terrorist group operating within his borders that had ties to al Qaeda. I am not trying to justify the war in Iraq because the argument mde for war has turned out to be false so far. BUT, I do get tired of people overlooking the simple facts like some I just listed. The fear was that he "could" give WMD to a terrorist group to bomb the US. And with his links to terrorists, it was a possibilty.

I don't want to argue North Korea anymore, because of two points. They have artillery within range of downtown Seoul, South Korea, and possibly have nukes. You can't fight that war... Libya giving up it's nukes, that's a plus.

Oh, and al Qaeda wasn't a top priority for anyone. But what really pisses me off is that Bush gets all the blame after being in office for 8 months and not doing something about al Qaeda, while Clinton gets a free pass for doing nothing after 8 YEARS. There is so much hypocrisy in that fact that it makes me sick to my stomach.

And Clarke is full of ****. He has two stories for everything, and I can't take anything he says seriously.

 

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by Elder
There was no plan, no matter what you try to tell me otherwise, to attack the Taliban before 9/11.

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml

http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10&ctg=

Hint: Check the dates

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml

http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10&ctg=

Hint: Check the dates

These links provide speculation, not action. It's a known fact that we supported the Northern Alliance over the Taliban before 9/11. It was news when when their leader was assissinated... Giving support, and putting troops on the ground are two different stories.

But it's interested reading anyway, thanks for the links.

 

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by Elder
These links provide speculation, not action. It's a known fact that we supported the Northern Alliance over the Taliban before 9/11. It was news when when their leader was assissinated... Giving support, and putting troops on the ground are two different stories.

Maybe... but as the second article says

"Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan.

Military action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban-controlled areas"

... so it was really only a matter of time. 9/11 sped things up, sure, but the possibility (or probability) of using military force already existed.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
Maybe... but as the second article says

"Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan.

Military action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban-controlled areas"

... so it was really only a matter of time. 9/11 sped things up, sure, but the possibility (or probability) of using military force already existed.

That certainly could be true. I was reading up on the Taliban before 9/11, and seem to remember that there was some sort of International outrage over them... Probably because of those Buddha statues. But I was reading more about human rights issues and the like, and can't seem to remember anything else. So, if you proved me wrong about what I stated earlier, hats off.

But think of this... could you imagine US and Russian military forces working together to fight the Taliban? At that time, not necessarily now, that would have been unheard of.

 

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by Elder
That certainly could be true. I was reading up on the Taliban before 9/11, and seem to remember that there was some sort of International outrage over them... Probably because of those Buddha statues. But I was reading more about human rights issues and the like, and can't seem to remember anything else. So, if you proved me wrong about what I stated earlier, hats off.

But think of this... could you imagine US and Russian military forces working together to fight the Taliban? At that time, not necessarily now, that would have been unheard of.

Yes, I do believe the first 'big' international 'outcry' over the Taliban occurred with respect to the statues, there may have been occassional stories about the Taliban wrt human rights issues, but very little.

As for the US and the Russians working together, it would certainly have been tough for them to work things out. Again, 9/11 changed all that. Prior to 9/11 there was a pretty significant international chorus of condemnation of Russian tactics regarding Chechnya, but this has seemingly ended in the post-9/11 environment (similarly, prior to 9/11 there was a much more vociferous condemnation of China and their human rights abuses).

But I guess 9/11 changed all that, and the Russians did extract a 'promise' from other countries not to overly condemn the Chechnyan debacle, such that they could cast it as part of the 'War on Terror'.

Russia could become a bit of a thorn in the side though, whereas in the early 1990's they would bend over backwards to appease the West (because of the required economic bailouts) they are increasingly following a more independent path. Democracy there is a sham, and Putin may as well be a dictator. The sleeping giant could yet reawaken.

 

[shokz]

Originally posted by Moron
Yea I wrote 5 letters to Powell and Bush about the situation, but i guess their not paying attention.

You smell.

 

[shokz]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004180470,00.html

Captain Hook is being deported.

Wherever he ends up, he can rot for all I care.

 

[Voltaic Borusse]

That pig should of invested in a maid.

 

[panxoman]

Originally posted by shokz
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004180470,00.html

Captain Hook is being deported.

Wherever he ends up, he can rot for all I care.

looking at his home, it's confirmed that's not a man, it's a rat.

Anyway if he's deported I wonder where. I remember some time ago in Spain there was an muslim "preacher" who was always critizising western world and asking for violence to fight against it and against women... he was ordered to leave the country and he just took his stuff and moved to Netherland where the continued teaching muslims how to punish their wifes and destroy western civilization...

 

[Spurs4Life]

Fu cks me off man. Like when Sept 11th happened u get some pakistani people who have lived here and educated here all there life, all of a sudden packed there bags to fight against English and US troops. If some of them hate England so much why do they live here, stop being users and p!ss of back to your own country.

 

[henry#14]

Originally posted by panxoman
I remember some time ago in Spain there was an muslim "preacher" who was always critizising western world and asking for violence to fight against it and against women... he was ordered to leave the country and he just took his stuff and moved to Netherland where the continued teaching muslims how to punish their wifes and destroy western civilization...

REALLY? shows how some ppl are dedicated to their cause.

anyway-what countries are 'neutral' b/c i know argentina has been (not sure if they still are) and some Nazi war criminal escaped there and the argentinean govt did nothing about it, or at least that's what i heard. is there any other neutral counrty where he could go

 

[JTNY]

I know one German went to Argentina. I forget his name, but the Israeli Nazi Hunters caught him. He was working for Mercedes.