Afghanistan

[The Atheist]

Yes I do love these non-sequiturs you keep coming up with, they are very funny.

I wonder if English is your second language, because you seem to miss a lot of context and nuance.

This is what I mean:

The US retaliating against terrorists who are operating out of Afghanistan is bad because many of them were from Saudi Arabia?

No, Attacking Afghanistan was bad, because it was a stupid response to 9/11. And I'm not some Johnny-jump-lately-on-the-bandwagon in this, I have extensive blogs and letters from the time saying it was dumb and wouldn't work, and here were are twenty bleeding years later, and we know for certain it was dumb and didn't work. If you think it was a smart, successful action, please let me know how you arrived at that conclusion.

Saudi Arabia sucks therefore Taliban and Al-Qaeda are good and America bad for defending themselves?

Word salad, light on mayo.

I'm not sure Kabul had a flight school at the time.

Comprehension level 0, although I'll raise that to a 3 if you were trying to be funny.

 

[theprestige]

Plus, Sinn Fein were affiliated with the IRA, but not actually terrorists themselves.

Interesting viewpoint. My view is that affiliating with terrorists makes you a terrorist too. Or did you mean to say that Sinn Fein repudiated the IRA?

 

[The Atheist]

While there's no doubt some elements of the Taliban are indulging in sadistic fantasies, they're certainly trying to stand up to criticism as a government:

Afghan universities will be segregated by gender, and a new Islamic dress code will be introduced, the Taliban has said.

Higher Education Minister Abdul Baqi Haqqani indicated women would be allowed to study, but not alongside men.

That's a 1000% improvement on their previous position of not allowing women to study at all.

And an interesting side-note in that story:

The announcement comes after a demonstration by women supportive of the Taliban's gender policies at Shaheed Rabbani Education University in Kabul yesterday.

Hundreds of women, most of them wearing black niqabs and carrying small Taliban flags, listened to speeches that praised the new regime and attacked those involved in large demonstrations across the country demanding the protection of women's rights.

Higher Education Minister Abdul Baqi Haqqani indicated women would be allowed to study, but not alongside men.

 

[Ziggurat]

A typical American response.

What a complete picture of everything that's wrong with America - you have only one eye open, and the only response ever is to hit harder than you yourself were hit.

I never said anything about "harder". You invented that.

But your knee-jerk straw-man hyperventilating is a pretty good encapsulation of much (but not all) of what's wrong with anti-Americanism.

Of course, American lives are more important than any other. Another reason the world views the country with horror or derision.

I didn't say that either. I said that America should prioritize American lives. Every country does that. Germany prioritizes German lives, Japan prioritizes Japanese lives, China prioritizes Chinese lives. There's nothing wrong with that, and if other countries view us with horror or derision for doing so, that's just pure hypocrisy on their part, since everyone does that. No country can survive if they don't. You can't even pretend that there's anything wrong with America prioritizing Americans. You have to straw man it instead, and claim it's something different than it actually is.

I can't wait to see how trying to stop the Rwandan genocide is prioritising American lives. Most of deaths were done with machetes fire. No IEDs, a few hundreds AK47s.

This... doesn't even make any sense. You've completely lost the thread of any coherent expression. The fact that the Rwandan genocide involved so little military force is precisely why we could have intervened while still prioritizing ourselves. Untold thousands could have been saved at very little risk to our own forces. Prioritizing American lives doesn't mean being indifferent to others.

China has everything to do with Afghanistan

They may have a lot to do with it going forward. They had nothing to do with our decision to invade in 2001.

And since you're so worried about those god-blessed American people, I'd have expected any country that has so far killed tens of thousands of Americans in the past five years to be seen as a major threat.

Almost all illegal fentanyl comes to USA from China. I'd estimate the death toll from https://www.commonwealthfund.org/bl...toll-2020-and-near-term-actions-addressing-it.

What's your point? That China are bad guys? Yeah, I know. You aren't actually presenting anything that runs counter to me here.

 

[dudalb]

While there's no doubt some elements of the Taliban are indulging in sadistic fantasies, they're certainly trying to stand up to criticism as a government:



That's a 1000% improvement on their previous position of not allowing women to study at all.

And an interesting side-note in that story:

If Adlof HItler were to end up oppoosed to the US, wyou would probably7 say nice things about Hitler.
You hate the US, pure and simple.

 

[Arcade22]

I wonder if English is your second language, because you seem to miss a lot of context and nuance.

You are the one being incoherent, sorry.

No, Attacking Afghanistan was bad, because it was a stupid response to 9/11. And I'm not some Johnny-jump-lately-on-the-bandwagon in this, I have extensive blogs and letters from the time saying it was dumb and wouldn't work, and here were are twenty bleeding years later, and we know for certain it was dumb and didn't work.

Okay Americans and the rest of the western world should just resign themselves to being killed by Terrorists without doing anything about it because doing something is "stupid", "dumb and "wouldn't work".

Presumably you'd be the first one to offer your family's heads to Al-Qaeda?

If you think it was a smart, successful action, please let me know how you arrived at that conclusion.

Go ahead and bring up the old blog-posts and show your own reasoning why invading Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban would not stop Al-Qaeda from using Afghanistan as a base from which to commit terrorist attacks abroad.

In that regard the US and NATO response has actually been highly successful. The sole reason that the Taliban were able to persist in Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda but rather Pakistan's continuing support for the Taliban. They would not have been able to achieve nearly the same success without that help.

Word salad, light on mayo.

How about you explain your rambling insane reasoning instead of insulting me?

Comprehension level 0, although I'll raise that to a 3 if you were trying to be funny.

So you actually meant that they should have bombed the Flight school in America? You are more deranged than i thought.

 

[Arcade22]

What's your point? That China are bad guys? Yeah, I know. You aren't actually presenting anything that runs counter to me here.

The reasoning is simply insane in its simplicity: if you bomb someone who assisted in the murder of thousands of your people then you absolutely must do the same to every single problem in the world. No exceptions.

If you bomb one you must bomb them all. Even things in the past must be bombed.

 

[Arcade22]

And an interesting side-note in that story:

I wonder how many of them were actual students and how much flour they got for showing up, unless they were just brought in at gunpoint.

 

[Ziggurat]

The reasoning is simply insane in its simplicity: if you bomb someone who assisted in the murder of thousands of your people then you absolutely must do the same to every single problem in the world. No exceptions.

That would indeed be insane reasoning. But you may well be correct. I can’t think of any alternative interpretation that makes any sense.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Interesting viewpoint. My view is that affiliating with terrorists makes you a terrorist too. Or did you mean to say that Sinn Fein repudiated the IRA?

No, I said what I meant to say. This forum is becoming less civil and more patronising by the day.
It is a fine distinction, but an important one.
It is possible to support the goals of the IRA- i.e. reunification with Ireland- without supporting the use of violence to acheive those goals.
This is what made the Good Friday Agreements possible- negotiation with Sinn Fein, in the knowledge that these talks would feed back to the IRA leadership, and their approval could be assessed and communicated. Ditto for the Unionist parties.
This is also what happened with the Taliban. The negotiators in Qatar were far more moderate. I wonder what they must be thinking seeing as most of what they agreed to had been abandoned by the hardline Taliban now they've got into power. A split between these factions would not necessarily be a bad thing, if it can rein in the fanatics.

 

[Darat]

Plus, Sinn Fein were affiliated with the IRA, but not actually terrorists themselves.

That was never more than a convenient fiction.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

That was never more than a convenient fiction.

Again, yes and no.
If you don't actually commit acts of terrorism, then arguably, you're not a terrorist. The line is vague and controversial, but it can be drawn somewhere.

That said, saying that Sinn Fein was a legitimate political party- even though everyone knew they were just the political arm of the IRA- was,as you say, a convenient fiction, but one that allowed negotiations to proceed, ultimately leading to the peace deal.
I would say that was a useful and pragmatic position to take.

 

[dudalb]

That was never more than a convenient fiction.

Sinn Finn was to the IRA like the Genco Puro Olive Oil company was to Vito Corleone: Nothing but a legal front to provide cover if his lillegal operations.

 

[The Atheist]

If Adlof HItler were to end up oppoosed to the US, wyou would probably7 say nice things about Hitler.

Funny you should mention that.

If I recall my history right, USA stayed completely out of WWII until the Japs sent you an invitation you couldn't refuse. A couple of famous Hitler fans spring to mind, and I think they were Yanks - one was a Kennedy, I think, and the other was some pilot bloke... Lindstrum, Lingham... no, Lindbergh, that was it.

You hate the US, pure and simple.

No, I hate the way it uses its power and weapons.

 

[theprestige]

No, I said what I meant to say. This forum is becoming less civil and more patronising by the day.
It is a fine distinction, but an important one.
It is possible to support the goals of the IRA- i.e. reunification with Ireland- without supporting the use of violence to acheive those goals.

I wholeheartedly agree. I would respect a political party that espoused the goals while repudiating terrorism as a tool to achieve those goals. Sinn Fein didn't do that. As you say, they affiliated with the IRA.

This is what made the Good Friday Agreements possible- negotiation with Sinn Fein, in the knowledge that these talks would feed back to the IRA leadership, and their approval could be assessed and communicated.

Usually the emissary of an enemy army, sent to negotiate terms under flag of truce, is well-understood to be a member of that army and a party to their aggression.

This is also what happened with the Taliban. The negotiators in Qatar were far more moderate.

Carrot and stick are well-recognized tools of extortion. The extortionist that offers the carrot as an alternative is complicit in the same extortion racket as his partner who is offering the stick.

Sinn Fein wasn't a disinterested third party, trying to bring peace as a neutral facilitator of negotiations. They were the IRA's political arm, trying to advance a terrorist agenda by offering more terrorism as an alternative to negotiating with them.

I'm not saying you should never negotiate with terrorists. I'm just saying you should be clear that's what's going on.

 

[The Atheist]

Okay Americans and the rest of the western world should just resign themselves to being killed by Terrorists...

Breathtaking in its ignorance.

How many Al Qaeda attacks have there been, and how many killed - apart from 9/11?

I can't be bothered checking, but I'd lay odds that outside of 9/11 sharks have killed more people than Al Qaeda since 2000 in the western world.

I love the way you see them as this threat to humankind, when it's clear their attacks have been on people who have attacked them and their kin first.

... without doing anything about it because doing something is "stupid", "dumb and "wouldn't didn't work".

Not wouldn't work, did not work.

Want evidence? Here you go: https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-tal...ed-haqqani-network-rises-to-power-11629990056

Presumably you'd be the first one to offer your family's heads to Al-Qaeda?

Yeah mate, my family is under threat from Al Qaeda.

What on earth are you drinking?

I quickly estimated the odds, and my family is more likely to be shot with a crossbow by a transgender elephant at the top of Mt Everest than be killed by Al Qaeda.

Hey, thanks for one thing, though - people tried to tell me Assange was right to avoid Sweden because of the pro-US/rendition attitude there and I wasn't convinced that was correct.

In that regard the US and NATO response has actually been highly successful. The sole reason that the Taliban were able to persist in Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda but rather Pakistan's continuing support for the Taliban. They would not have been able to achieve nearly the same success without that help.

Gee, and now the Yanks have run home to mommy's apple pie, what do you think is going to happen?

Hint: read the link to WSJ.

How about you explain your rambling insane reasoning instead of insulting me?

I didn't insult you - I pointed out your post is word salad.

That appears to be your problem rather than mine.

So you actually meant that they should have bombed the Flight school in America?

I suspect it's not so much a comprehension problem as a deliberate attempt to deflect from the silly post, but what the heck.

You are more deranged than i thought.

That's an insult. See if you can spot the difference between what I'm saying and what you posted.

Nothing cheers me up like people telling me I'm deranged when I point out the hypocrisy and stupidity of America's military actions.

Hey, I believe Granada turned out ok! Top effort.

 

[theprestige]

Funny you should mention that.

If I recall my history right, USA stayed completely out of WWII until the Japs sent you an invitation you couldn't refuse.

You recall your history wrong. The US was already giving assistance to the UK at that point, and was already gearing up for open war with the Axis. They weren't all in yet, but they were very much more than "completely out".

 

[The Atheist]

You recall your history wrong. The US was already giving assistance to the UK at that point,....

That's a point I'd love to discuss in another thread if you want to go there, because my history - of the shipping at least - says the Yanks gave us a load of clapped-out, smoke-belching, slow, death traps of ships they didn't need any more.

... and was already gearing up for open war with the Axis. They weren't all in yet, but they were very much more than "completely out".

Again, way off topic, so I'll just note that my take on that was that it was entirely Japanese growth and belligerence that drove that.

 

[abaddon]

Breathtaking in its ignorance.

How many Al Qaeda attacks have there been, and how many killed - apart from 9/11?

I can't be bothered checking, but I'd lay odds that outside of 9/11 sharks have killed more people than Al Qaeda since 2000 in the western world.

I will take that bet.

Shark attack fatalities 2000-2016 = 75 approx (excluding 9/11 of course)

Al Quaeda attack fatalities 2000-2016 = 4813 approx (excluding 9/11 of course)

It is like you never check anything, ever.

 

[Michel H]

I will take that bet.

Shark attack fatalities 2000-2016 = 75 approx (excluding 9/11 of course)

Al Quaeda attack fatalities 2000-2016 = 4813 approx (excluding 9/11 of course)

It is like you never check anything, ever.

References?