Withdraw from Afganisthan

Salvelinus

worldrepublic wrote: »

Because he's dead! Al Qaeda (or should i say, Al CIAda) is still garnering lots of attention though. Or are you one of these people who truly believes that we are STILL trying to find Osama?! The FBI have officially stated that they removed him from their most wanted list due to "lack of evidence".

Hmmm... maybe Osama is hiding in Pakistan though? Let's invade Pakistan! Whoopee!

You have evidence he's dead. "you one of these people" that's the conspiracy theory board talk right there. Have you a link for the lack of evidence thing?
Anyway thanks for missing the point.

worldrepublic

Salvelinus wrote: »

You have evidence he's dead. "you one of these people" that's the conspiracy theory board talk right there. Have you a link for the lack of evidence thing?
Anyway thanks for missing the point.

Do your own research! If you can't be bothered, just watch some Michael Moore documentaries (he did win an oscar, you know!).

(P.s. I secretly believe you though -the TERRORISTS are EVERYWHERE now!)

Fratton Fred

worldrepublic wrote: »

Do your own research! If you can't be bothered, just watch some Michael Moore documentaries (he did win an oscar, you know!).

so Mossad, the CIA and MI6 should all give up and ask Michael Moore what he thinks

Salvelinus

worldrepublic wrote: »

Do your own research! If you can't be bothered, just watch some Michael Moore documentaries (he did win an oscar, you know!).

(P.s. I secretly believe you though -the TERRORISTS are EVERYWHERE now!)

Really, as much as you like to think Fahrenheit 911 wasn't a documentary. It was a wasted opportunity and a childish swipe at Bush. Where does he mention Bin Laden in Sicko & Roger and me, in fact he didn't mention the crud you're talking about in Fahrenheit 911 either. Have you got a list of all oscar winners, maybe I can base my world view around them.
Yes, because I disagree with you I think terrorists are everywhere. No wonder the countires f***ed when people with great intelligence and use of logic like you are spending time on the internets tubes. Go for the good fo society.
ps, if you want to find out about Al Qaeda and Bin Laden get a Jason Burke book

worldrepublic

Here is Obama (as of today, August 17th 2009) telling anyone who is foolish enough to listen that Al qaeda are secretly plotting to attack America AGAIN. It's a clear perpetuation of the "War on Terror". You might as well be listening to Bush Jr. What has changed?

Salvelinus

worldrepublic wrote: »

Here is Obama (as of today, August 17th 2009) telling anyone who is foolish enough to listen that Al qaeda are secretly plotting to attack America AGAIN. It's a clear perpetuation of the "War on Terror". You might as well be listening to Bush Jr. What has changed?

What are you on about? I don't believe that terrorists are everywhere waiting to take away our freedoms. I don't believe that Al Qaeda is some monolithical group with a classic structure with Bin Laden at the top handing out orders. Al Qaeda is an umbrella organisation, a banner or a rally cry for a network of networks. If you don't think that there are hard line extremists out there to rival Bush and Cheney you are deluded. And these morons aren't driven by some noble cause like helping ordinary muslims. The Taliban was funded by Arab states, in Iraq it's muslims killing other muslims.

worldrepublic

Salvelinus wrote: »

What are you on about? I don't believe that terrorists are everywhere waiting to take away our freedoms. I don't believe that Al Qaeda is some monolithical group with a classic structure with Bin Laden at the top handing out orders. Al Qaeda is an umbrella organisation, a banner or a rally cry for a network of networks. If you don't think that there are hard line extremists out there to rival Bush and Cheney you are deluded. And these morons aren't driven by some noble cause like helping ordinary muslims. The Taliban was funded by Arab states, in Iraq it's muslims killing other muslims.

Obaaaama! Save us from TERROR and the TERRORISTS! We will do anything, sign away anything, pay anything, submit to anything... just save us from the bad guys "over there"!

Salvelinus

worldrepublic wrote: »

Obaaaama! Save us from TERROR and the TERRORISTS! We will do anything, sign away anything, pay anything, submit to anything... just save us from the bad guys "over there"!

I don't remember that one from a michael Moore film, or did you hear it from your friends in front of the central bank. If you don't have anything of substance go to the spirituality or conspiracy theory section. You'll fit right in there.

Buffy the bitch

irish_bob wrote: »

actually the war in afghanistan has more to do with the uk than america , it has more to do with europe than the usa , if afghanistan is lost , it will be europe who will suffer a hell of a lot more than the usa

Oh yeah and Europe was under so much fire pre 9/11 weren't they :rolleyes:

Because he's dead! Al Qaeda (or should i say, Al CIAda) is still garnering lots of attention though. Or are you one of these people who truly believes that we are STILL trying to find Osama?! The FBI have officially stated that they removed him from their most wanted list due to "lack of evidence".

Hmmm... maybe Osama is hiding in Pakistan though? Let's invade Pakistan! Whoopee!

Laden isn't dead but I do agree he is in Pakistan protected by high rank members of the parlaiment, just look at the missiles in 1998 where they helped Osama escape.

Sand

Oh yeah and Europe was under so much fire pre 9/11 weren't they

Yes it was. You just werent paying attention. Jihadists didnt start their war in 2001 you know. Its an idealogy forged in the 1950s.

Here is Obama (as of today, August 17th 2009) telling anyone who is foolish enough to listen that Al qaeda are secretly plotting to attack America AGAIN.

So you think Al Queda are peace activists?

Obaaaama! Save us from TERROR and the TERRORISTS! We will do anything, sign away anything, pay anything, submit to anything... just save us from the bad guys "over there"!

Yeah the World Trade center is still standing, it was just an optical illusion that made it look like it collapsed...

worldrepublic

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Oh yeah and Europe was under so much fire pre 9/11 weren't they :rolleyes:



Laden isn't dead but I do agree he is in Pakistan protected by high rank members of the parlaiment, just look at the missiles in 1998 where they helped Osama escape.

You have thought up your own little "conspiracy theory" -well done!

irish_bob

Salvelinus wrote: »

Bin Laden is form one of the richest Saudi families, why doesn't he spread the wealth.

thats not the arab way

Salvelinus

worldrepublic wrote: »

You have thought up your own little "conspiracy theory" -well done!

She got vaccinated.

Nodin

irish_bob wrote: »

thats not the arab way

No, its only a religous obligation to the Muslims amongst them.

Any more of your wisdom on the subject?

Cannibal Ox

worldrepublic wrote:

The FBI have officially stated that they removed him from their most wanted list due to "lack of evidence".

Link

:pac:

There was a memo about two odd weeks ago that said they've had no info on Bin Laden or Zawahiri, but nothing about them being dead. They think they've killed Bin Laden's son though. Maybe you're confusing the two.

worldrepublic

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Link

:pac:

There was a memo about two odd weeks ago that said they've had no info on Bin Laden or Zawahiri, but nothing about them being dead. They think they've killed Bin Laden's son though. Maybe you're confusing the two.

Hmmm, if he is alive and in Pakistan, once the US/UK have achieved their objectives in (i.e. control of) Pakistan... well then, Osama is just so clever, he wil nip across into oil rich Kazakhstan, with his rebel factions in toe, and then the US/UK can move in there too....

Bren Jacob

I know my facts.
However it looks very much like your the one whos lost in the dark so to speak.
A fact underlined by your use of three European examples.
Apart from the fact that the three examples you give are of European conflicts they are also examples of occupying forces where as the Taliban in Helmand are native pashtun's from the tribes of Helmand and actually have the support of the local population due to the fact that the situation has got worse since the arrival of the British and US forces.

As part of your education you could do a lot worse than have a look at the video by Guardian photographer Sean Smith on The Guardian websites front page to see exactly what the British "liberation" of Helmand is doing.
A link for your benefit and education: http://www.guardian.co.uk/

No need to thank me.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Normandy was pretty peaceful before the allies invaded on D-Day, Poland was fairly peaceful before Lech Walenska started Solidarity, East Germany was fairly peaceful before a load of people decided to go and jump over a stupid wall.

why not try and read up a bit about Afghanistan and ISAF before posting again.

Cannibal Ox

worldrepublic wrote: »

Hmmm, if he is alive and in Pakistan, once the US/UK have achieved their objectives in (i.e. control of) Pakistan... well then, Osama is just so clever, he wil nip across into oil rich Kazakhstan, with his rebel factions in toe, and then the US/UK can move in there too....

Kazakhstan, not beside Pakistan

Also, part of the Commonwealth of Independent States, making it highly unlikely the US would set foot in Kazakhstan.

Also, Texaco, Chevron, British Gas are already investing billions in Kazakhstan to produce oil for the West. It wouldn't make sense for the US to invade a country that's already been invaded by oil companies.

Fratton Fred

Bren Jacob wrote: »

I know my facts.
However it looks very much like your the one whos lost in the dark so to speak.
A fact underlined by your use of three European examples.
Apart from the fact that the three examples you give are of European conflicts they are also examples of occupying forces where as the Taliban in Helmand are native pashtun's from the tribes of Helmand and actually have the support of the local population due to the fact that the situation has got worse since the arrival of the British and US forces.

the taliban ruled Afghanistan by force. Prior to them taking control there was a huge civil war, which was eventually won (in the main) by the Taliban, thanks to outside help from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and all the surrounding "Stans". If anyone questioned the Taliban, they were punished, or killed. If that is peace, then you have a very unusual understanding of the word "Peace".

Bren Jacob wrote: »

As part of your education you could do a lot worse than have a look at the video by Guardian photographer Sean Smith on The Guardian websites front page to see exactly what the British "liberation" of Helmand is doing.
A link for your benefit and education: http://www.guardian.co.uk/

No need to thank me.

Oh, i will thank you, it is a very good video. In there a local says that many governments have tried to bring peace and all failed, now the Americans are here and things are worse. well, he is living in a war zone.

Other than showing that Panther's Claw is not throwing up many dead Taliban bodies (which he does say may be due to the Taliban taking their dead with them) i'm not sure what you are trying to prove with that. War is a bloody horrible business, no one will argue there.

Manic Moran

Apart from the fact that the three examples you give are of European conflicts they are also examples of occupying forces where as the Taliban in Helmand are native pashtun's from the tribes of Helmand and actually have the support of the local population due to the fact that the situation has got worse since the arrival of the British and US forces.

Taliban have to have a base of support somewhere. If the tribes of Helmland wish to live under such a unique government, that's their lookout, but if that same government they support feels like imposing itself on people who aren't so keen on it, then the natural knock-on will be that the war will come back to them.

NTM

CathalMc

Can I ask the anti-war folk for what they see as preferable solutions to military action for the Taliban/Al-Qaeda/Islamic-extremist situation? Particularly one with a realistic chance of success, with clear overall improvement in moral standing.

Suppose the British and Americans pulled out of every non-NATO country in the morning for example.

Salvelinus

CathalMc wrote: »

Can I ask the anti-war folk for what they see as preferable solutions to military action for the Taliban/Al-Qaeda/Islamic-extremist situation? Particularly one with a realistic chance of success, with clear overall improvement in moral standing.

Suppose the British and Americans pulled out of every non-NATO country in the morning for example.

I wasn't against the war in Afghanistan but I was against the one in Iraq, the thing about Afghanistan is it's going to be a long haul. This country is one tough area with tough people. Historically didn't you have Alexander the Great and the Khans go through it, they inflicted two massive defeats on the British Empire and possibly played a big role in collapsing the Soviet Empire. The thing is alot of people mightn't support the taliban but they mght support what in the west we would consider extreme Islam, plus the country is fairly regional. I think inone of Jason Burkes books he implied that int he area bordering Pakistan the people consider themselves primarily from that area and muslim over being from Afghanistan, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Also what is considered victory, does it involve some form of negotiation wioth the taliban?

CathalMc

I don't see the problem in waving our superior moral authority around on this point. I'd see success as establishment of a reasonable level of self-determination rather than authoritarian, repressive, oppressive, extremist movements. Where these extremist movements are militant, it suggests a military element if not an military solution. And there are education initiatives supported by the military in these regions that have had a hugely impressive impact in lowering local Taliban enrollment. Particularly from the education of women, interestingly enough.

OS119

Salvelinus wrote: »

.
Also what is considered victory, does it involve some form of negotiation wioth the taliban?

anything between an Islamic Theocracy that might be an absolute sh*thole but doesn't provide knowing or unknowing haven/support for 'non-state actors', and a first world democracy with more dust.

the first is an 'it'll do', the second would be great but probably unrealistic.

anyone who's serious believes that some elements of the Taleban will be involved in its future governance, it just depends on which bits, what they 'need' to participate and what they accept as being the price of power/peace.

think Sinn Fein or wider Republicanism of the 80's and 90's, a very broad church encompassing almost constitutional nationalists who'd live with an all-Ireland tourism body to loons who think the legitimate government of Ireland is two men and a dog in cowshed in Co Louth and that anyone with a 'Free State' passport or driving licence is a traitor to the Republic and should be shot.

Salvelinus

CathalMc wrote: »

I don't see the problem in waving our superior moral authority around on this point. I'd see success as establishment of a reasonable level of self-determination rather than authoritarian, repressive, oppressive, extremist movements. Where these extremist movements are militant, it suggests a military element if not an military solution. And there are education initiatives supported by the military in these regions that have had a hugely impressive impact in lowering local Taliban enrollment. Particularly from the education of women, interestingly enough.

I think this is where the big change is going to come from, more than mlitary action. It's no coincidence that the biggest **** holes are places where women are treated like propertry or baby machines.

CathalMc

I remember the detail now, although I'm afraid I forget where I heard this. Essentially young Afghan men require their mothers willing blessing to join the Taliban, and educated women are highly likely to refuse. To go against their mothers' wishes in this way is apparently highly dishonorable. This, of course, further fuels Taliban attacks on schools, and those who would bring education to to their villages.

SLUSK

Everyone who advocates war should sign up and go fight themselves otherwise they are nothing but load mouth chicken hawks like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Salvelinus

SLUSK wrote: »

Everyone who advocates war should sign up and go fight themselves otherwise they are nothing but load mouth chicken hawks like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Like Bin Laden or other clerics?

Manic Moran

SLUSK wrote: »

Everyone who advocates war should sign up and go fight themselves otherwise they are nothing but load mouth chicken hawks like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

So do those of us who are currently fighting one get any extra credit?

Just wondering if it means we can tell people who don't have the practical experience of knowing what's going on to shut up. No? In that case, let the pro-military action chaps speak, even without signing the dotted line.

NTM

worldrepublic

True, simple rule: those who declare wars must fight on the front line -no more wars!

And what about Pakistan. The War on Terror is bigger than it ever was. Difference is, there actually are WMD's in Pakistan.

Can you imagine Bush Jnr. or Obama, or Hilary on the front lines -not on your nelly.

Plus, let's face it the whole left versus right paradigm is a joke. It's like a pro-wrestling match where the biggest politicians appear to hate each other's guts, before skipping off to play a round of golf together.

Although Hitchens was pro the war in Iraq, and is an out and out atheist, is also speaks to the hypocrisy of the left:

The very idea of one side thinking "we are the goodies" and the other side are 100% evil is childish. Corruption and hypocrisy is the only constant. Public perception is manufactured, black and white, good and bad, lower class and upper class. The truth always seems to involve shades of grey, or shades of green.