Northern Alliance To Take Kabul Tomorrow

[RedRed]

MD, I wish

Afghanistan is beside China and the USSR - there is no way that the US will give support without trying to get some influence there - that is the reason it has been faught over for so long!!!


Its a f**Ked up country because of the west/China/Russia thing since the start of the last Centuary, and it will contiue to be.

[Admiral]

"If you're not with us, you're against us"
this pretty much sums up the whole American philosophy.
Just having a different opinion puts you in the "not with us" category.
Thought you've learned that by now Red, having stimulated enough debates in this forum.
Guess that when your blood pressure will start to get up you'll realize how pointless it can be to convince them that they might... they can be wrong sometimes.

[Rags]

]Rags
Hey, I didnt want to get you blood pressure up, i want to stimulate some debate!

I have no problem with debate, that's why I responded. My blood pressure never goes up, so don't stress. Seems you are stressing about 'the west' a bit too much.

I get so fustrated with the 'no questions asked', short sighted and blinkered approach most posters seem to be taking.

It's a great thing we have you to counter with the same from the other side.

I am not full of 'blind bias',

No. You are full of misinformed bias. I stand corrected.

I dont really care what happen in Afghanistan,

You should.

and I am not 'anti american' either.

You are anti-west.

I am trying to point out a few facts,

That would be fine if they were facts, but some of what you say is total bunk.

and look at some longer term problems.

Try using some real logic then.

The taliban are/were a bunch of really bad bastards, I AGREE!!!!!
The difference is I felt they were bad bastards for years (helping chechnia for one thing), not just since sept 11.

I agree with you 100 percent.

but lets look at your comments,
you say:
The Taliban weren't our enemies until they refused to hand over terrorists (who were openly admitting their actions many times)

The taliban have been identified as a state harbouring terrorism by the UN for YEARS. It is a bit of rich to say that they are evil bastards now.... because one group they harboured attacked the US directly... THEY HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED THEM, and the US did nothing - remember that the embassys hit a few years ago killed 300+ africans..... The US led 'alliance' did not wage war on Al Qieda then. (the US was still sponsoring the taliban at this time!!!)

It is my belief we should have stomped into last week when they bombed the embassy. I said it before sept. 11 that they were evil bastards. I will go on the record as saying there are evil bastards in every country, but there are many out there where it's policy to be that way. The difference now is that they came to our country and effectively committed an act of war. You do know what an act of war is, right? I believe that Billy Clinton should have asked for a declaration of war when they bombed our ship and bombed the embassy, but it would have been a bit more of a stretch to get UN support. Now it's a no brainer. Even for you.

err. I never claimed they were popular..... I said that they were necessary to impose SOME order in the country, which had been rulled by loose confederations of tribal chiefs & warlords... the people were NOT happy with this before, and its what they have got back now!!!

They didn't assmeble any order in the country. They opened up shop for crooks and murderers. That's a bit like the mafia claiming they have done the country a favor by 'organizing' crime. IMO, the taliban were way worse than anarchy.

does this spawn another question - 'should america attack itself for supporting terrorists as well? its harboured insurgents for years, and carried out an ilegal (in the eyes of the UN) blockade against Cuba?' - discuss

This is another discussion altogether, but under the guidelines that GWB and the Congress have agreed upon, we wouldn't attack ourselves nor would we attack N. Ireland.

Er.... are you saying america would have attacked Packistan?

No doubt about it pal.

Are you for real, man?

Absolutely

This is not some iron age country (though it might look like it sometimes).

Why? Because they figured out how to build a nuke? Give me a break.

This is a ****ing Nuke-/chem-/bio-hazard of the first division!!!!

Yes, they are, but it's pretty tough when they have no way to deliver the product. If we wanted we could make them a Wal Mart parking lot before they even knew what hit them. They have early 70's tech.

Packistan did not support the Taliban because it was intrested in getting its sancions lifted - not from fear of a US attack.

You are on dope. They have had the sanctions for ages, and while they get the bonus of having them lifted, they would have knelt regardless. Even Pakistand isn't that stupid

Yes america would undoubitly be able to destroy Pakistan - no question... but america could also 'loose' entire western seaboard - they are almost at Mutually Assured Destruction levels of armament!!!

Not even close. They have severe problems of delivery. They would be lucky to be able to hit a target in USSR, much less over an ocean.

This does spawn another question: Will US attack any country with a reasonable chance if hitting them back? if so then the list of countries supporting international terrorism will be a long one!! (pakistan being one of them!!!)

You see, the line is very clear. You hand over known terrorists when asked for it and you don't get your ass handed to you. It's very simple. There is no gray area. Either you cooperate or you are our enemy. The line is very clear and if our gov't doesn't follow through I will be very surprised and many other Americans will be voting their asses out. Defense of our borders are the number one priority bar none.

I was just pointing out that they exist in as many as a dozen countries around the world.... Al Qieda is not the first, nor the only group involved in international terrorism.... It was the first to give the US a seriously bloodied nose.

They hardly even bruised us, much less gave us a bloody nose. They hurt the other nations nearly as much as us. I know they aren't the first, but they are the first on our list. And you better believe there is a list. And some of these people lay in Nuke countries. No one who has half a brain wants to be like the taliban.

I hope so, but I havent seen a shred of evidence to point to that being so, thats my point!

RedRed

The evidence is that free without law is better than not free with total law. Tell me who said this and I will give you a coconut.

Rags

[Gurm]

Rags,

Asking him to tell you is hardly fair - you can't expect him to have actually READ any history books... well, at least not any history books that contain the TRUTH.

- Gurm

P.S. Yes, I'm pretty egotistical. A top-notch education does that to you. You wanna go toe-to-toe with us? Make sure your facts are correct.

[mdhome]

While we are talking about terrorism can we discuss why it is only now that the US has outlawed the collecting of funds for the IRA. Whether Britain should have been in Ireland is a moot point but these funds helped kill thousands of innocent civilians as well as over 1000 British soldiers. As a long time friend of the US, can our American friends please explain to me why it took so long. As we say I'm all ears and would be happy to stand corrected.

regards MD

[Joel]

Because we had 8 years of a worthless piece of s*** as a president.

Joel

[The PIT]

Mdhome. Let us not forget the Loyalist terrorists who are no better than the IRA/Real IRA. As I've said before how come it's rarely mentioned about them decommisioning their arms as well.
It's time we also sorted those out as well.

[Dr Mordrid]

This has nothing to do with Afghan nationals or the Mujahedeenm, which the US did support against the old Soviet Union. It has to do with a very traditional and militaristic wing of the Wahabi movement, which is native to Saudi Arabia.

Going back to the '80's and before the Saudi government was under pressure to share power with some of their religious minorities, which included the Wahabi. In a power sharing arrangement aimed at keeping the domestic peace the Saudi government gave the education and religious ministries to them.

Unfortunately by the time this had been done the Wahabi had been been taken over by a militaristic faction bent on taking the world back to the 10th century, by force if necessary. Osma Bin Laden was a convert to this form of Wahabism before he ever left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

After this massive error by the Saudi government the Wahabi running the Saudi education ministry started funding the building of religious schools and Mosques teaching their brand of Islam around the world. We even have some in the Detroit area, which gives pause to both the moderate Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Some of these schools were also built in Pakistan and gave rise to the Taliban movement. Most all of the Taliban were taught in the Wahabi schools in Pakistan.

Bottom line: in order for any militaristic group to thrive and expand their power they have to have an enemy against which to turn their converts anger. In the case of the Wahabi we in the west, and any Muslims who trade or interact with us, were convenient targets once the Soviet Union was expelled from Afghanistan.

Under Whabism's intellectual ancestors, the NAZI's, it was the Jews and other ethnic & religious groups they felt were conventient targets.

The more things change the more they stay the same......

If you want to read what other Muslims have to say about Wahabism check this article on the Muslim Directory Online;

http://www.ummah.org.uk/Al_adaab/wahhabi_khariji.html#Najdi-note

Interestingly enough the militaristic Wahabi's have been so vilified in the mainstream Muslim world that they have begun to re-name themselves, hoping this will alleviate them of some of the stigmatism becoming attached to the name Wahabi. Their new traveling name is "Salafiyya".

Dr. Mordrid

[mdhome]

Originally posted by The PIT
Mdhome. Let us not forget the Loyalist terrorists who are no better than the IRA/Real IRA. As I've said before how come it's rarely mentioned about them decommisioning their arms as well.
It's time we also sorted those out as well.

Hello Pit
As I have stated here in the past, I am aware that IRA was no better than the loyalists but the question was directed at their financing. Britain has stood out and supported the US on so many occasions that I feel that I have a right to have this question answered.


regards MD

[omegaRED]

Hehehe ... i`m gonna try to stay out of this one ... which shouldnt be a problem considering i wont have any access to the net the next 10-15 days.

BTW a coconut is not really a prize. If it was something more valuable i would have considered looking for the answer

[Gurm]

The fact that you have to "look for the answer" kinda makes our point, now doesn't it?

- Gurm

[RedRed]

Joel :

Pit asked a sensible question... Noraid (the US funding organisation for the Provisional IRA) was set up in the '70's. It came to prominance during the 80's & raised most of its cash then. (barratt sniper rifles, M60's and RPG 7's cost money, ya know!) This was under your beloved Regan & Bush years!

My question remains, what does the US plan to do about the Cuban rebels and other groups they have been sheltering or supporting for years?

Grum:
do them books wif da big words yaw be a-readin' ha piktures in 'em?
You are not the only person to have gone to University. (Been there, done that, working (part time) on the PhD). You might be a genius (you tell everyone in the fori often enough!). You rarely contribute positive information anymore, just slanging crap to tell everyone how hard done you are or how pissed of you are with life/ethnic groups/politicians/kryo II/matrox/ - delete as appropriate.


Mordred:
Thanks for the info, this was intresting.

Rags:
My comments stem from the fact that most US citizens seem to assume that whatever they or their government decide is right, goes, irrespecive of what the rest of the world thinks.

Admittedly it would be impossible for Pakistan to launch a missile strike against the US - I never suggested something so stupid.

2 pounds of weapons grade plutonium or 6 pounds of weapons grade Uranium and a large conventional bomb would be sufficient. This could be used to make several 'dirty bombs' which would leave any city unuseable for years. Any country with even '70's nuclear technology' could do that. the same could apply for Biohazard or chemical.

If Pakistan or syria North Korea or any other near-nuclear country seriously believed that the US would try to 'make a walmart car lot' out of them, they would disperse this tech.

an another point, the US would have to 'dream on' as far as support from ANYONE else in the UN for such an action. This is a former British Colony. Britian even has something like 130 000 first and second generation packistani people living within its shores.

I am sorry Rags, but I pray that your perception of how far other countries will support the US in this is WAY out. The world WILL support the US against pariah states, but it would be stupid to think that they support 'normalised' ones.

Admiral:

"If you're not with us, you're against us"
this pretty much sums up the whole American philosophy.
Just having a different opinion puts you in the "not with us" category.

Yup!

My tuppence worth, as an ignorant Irishman, picking over his patatoes, and dreaming of the 'big school'

[omegaRED]

Ease up Gurm. I hardly READ the question (or rhetoric, or whatever it is), let alone thought about it. I dont care what it is or what it is supposed to prove or say. I was just making a joke about the coconut.

So dont assume i`m stupid or illiterate if you didnt get my joke.

[Dr Mordrid]

"My comments stem from the fact that most US citizens seem to assume that whatever they or their government decide is right, goes, irrespecive of what the rest of the world thinks"

Actually....no. The attitude of Americans is MUCH more independent than that.

The prevailing attitude among Americans is NOT to believe our government. We also tend not to give a DAMN what the rest of the world thinks since the world opinion, at least in the form of European opinion, has been shown by history to be almost universally WRONG.

Ex: the Pershing missle deployment in the '80's. It was key in the downfall of the Soviet Union in that it overstressed their ability to keep up and still maintain their economy.

The same will be shown true when it comes to ballistic missile defense, the theater portion of which will be deployed VERY soon in the form of eleven 747 mounted multi-megawatt chemical lasers.

In point of fact, more often than not if our government agrees with the rest of the world the American people are likely as not going to oppose them both on that principle alone.

Ex: most Americans are free traders, but are HIGHLY suspicious of the WTO. They feel that many WTO rules & regulations may well violate our internal constitutional guarantees. The examples are too numerous to list.

In the case of this war on terrorism the American people are MUCH more agressive in their attitudes than our leadership is, if you can even imagine such a thing. If it were up to American public opinion we would be nuking those Afghan caves instead of messing with conventional bombs. The also would have already started on Iraq.

So much for being led like sheep.

These sheep are trying to push the shepards to go faster & harder

Dr. Mordrid

[RedRed]

Actually....no. The attitude of Americans is MUCH more independent than that.

Ok Mordrid, I wrote that incorectly......
What I should have said was something along the lines of:

"my comment stem from the observation that most American citizens seem to assume that whatever they decide is right, goes, irrespective of what the rest of the world thinks."

Most of Europe see the WTO as in Americas pocket!

The thaught that Nuclear weapons should be used by a developed country on an essentially Iron Age one goes to show the lack of maturity and darn right stupidity of the views of the average 'Joe' with regards to Foreign policy. Before the assult, many americans (holding that view) wouldnt even have known where Afghanistan was, but would know that the CIA helped the 'locals kick the russians butt!', or some other such twaddle.
They would never be thinking along the lines of 'oh that darn country is a bit close to Red China, Russia, and Pakiwho? (our 'aly')
Its why the average Joe is not in charge of a thermo nuclear device.

We also tend not to give a DAMN what the rest of the world thinks

Yeah and the Middle East and Korea and Veitnam and Laos and Panama and Nicuragura and Cuba and a hundred other places have suffered because of it!

These sheep are trying to push the shepards to go faster & harder

yeah you might think its amusing, but that is a f**king stupid idea!

RedRed