Isreal, Arabs, Iraq, and Iran

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

You realize Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11?

And something like 90% of the American people believed Saddam had something to do with it pre invasion. That's almost absolute information control.

Nothin propa bout your progaganda.

we arent talking about iraq. we are referring to afgahistan.

and its fun to make up numbers like 90% isnt it? we attacked afgahinstan because they were harboring el queda. lets try to not get sidetracked ok?

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

we arent talking about iraq. we are referring to afgahistan.

and its fun to make up numbers like 90% isnt it? we attacked afgahinstan because they were harboring el queda. lets try to not get sidetracked ok?

When a guy from Jersey robs a bank, do the riot police go in with automatic weapons and destroy his neighborhood? That would be insane right?

You go after the individual(s) that commmit the crime. Same holds true for international crimes.

What makes the Bin Laden situation that much more insane is they didn't just get the wrong neighborhood when they went after him, they got the wrong country (a war crime). Most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia as I recall.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

keeponrockin wrote:

WE WERE FUCKING ATTACKED FOR GOD KNOWS WHAT REASON, AND THEN WE WENT TO ATTACK THOSE WHO ATTACKED US.

Listen to the first interview.

here

You won't even have to read, and only one click is required. You have to pay attention though...

God knows what reason?

Honestly....that's laughable. I hope you were being sarcastic.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

When a guy from Jersey robs a bank, do the riot police go in with automatic weapons and destroy his neighborhood? That would be insane right?

what a ridiculous comparison.

Commy wrote:

You go after the individual(s) that commmit the crime. Same holds true for international crimes.

we went after the government who harbored them. the taliban (I know you are jumping at the chance to say what about Iraq!!!!!!) stay focused.

Commy wrote:

What makes the Bin Laden situation that much more insane is they didn't just get the wrong neighborhood when they went after him, they got the wrong country (a war crime). Most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia as I recall.

the saudi government didnt support the attack. the disowned bin laden years ago. saudi arbia has alot of extremist in their country but the government supports us. are you suggested we should have gone after saudi arbia? what sense would that make. I would love to see you bitch about bombing a country we were actually friends with.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

what a ridiculous comparison.

we went after the government who harbored them. the taliban (I know you are jumping at the chance to say what about Iraq!!!!!!) stay focused.



the saudi government didnt support the attack. the disowned bin laden years ago. saudi arbia has alot of extremist in their country but the government supports us. are you suggested we should have gone after saudi arbia? what sense would that make. I would love to see you bitch about bombing a country we were actually friends with.

I don't advocate bombing any country for any reason ever. Look at a picture from a war, look at ONE war casualty and make a case for bombing Afghanistan. Make a case to go after a group that may or may not have had anything to do with 9/11.

Its important to note how the Taliban came to power-maybe they were behind 9/11. Well, where did they come from? The Taliban and Al-queada are a spawn of a CIA program to fight a guerilla style war against a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They set up networks to import foreign fightrs to keep the Russians out of Chechnya and Afghanistan-at the cost of tens of thousands of lives. They imported hundreds of thousands of school textbooks teaching the more radical side if ISlam. They created a fundamentalist environment during the cold war designed to fight the Russians that came back and bit them in the ass. Their reaction after getting bitten? Bomb the villages and replace the fundamentalist Taliban with fundamentalist brutal warlords.

That's justice these days?

And you should realize the US is the most advanced millitary in the world, which I am sure you know. That means we are the best at waging war. War is hell. Those villages destroyed weren't all "collateral". Wives and children of Taliban leaders were dilerberately targeted, much like Saddam's entire family was murdered. That's how the masters of war play. They kill your children, rape your wife, and if you have anything left to fight for they take you out too.

Nationwide carnage for what?

Kann

keeponrockin wrote:

jlew, I don't agree with you on much. But I support you in this thread.

WE WERE FUCKING ATTACKED FOR GOD KNOWS WHAT REASON, AND THEN WE WENT TO ATTACK THOSE WHO ATTACKED US.

How come most of the culprits points towards saudi arabia and pakistan and not afghanistan or irak?
Getting rid of the taliban was doing the world a favor but it sure could have been done better.

Byrnzie

Kann wrote:

How come most of the culprits points towards saudi arabia and pakistan and not afghanistan or irak?
Getting rid of the taliban was doing the world a favor but it sure could have been done better.

Carpet bombing a soveriegn nation and killing countless tens of thousands of innocents was doing the world a favour? How so?
Al Queda are now stronger than ever and Bin Laden is still alive. Afghanistan is now a mess with tribal groups controlling the country and the Taliban regrouped and strengthened.
And it's not 'Irak', it's 'Iraq'.

spiral out

jlew24asu wrote:

we went after the government who harbored them. the taliban (I know you are jumping at the chance to say what about Iraq!!!!!!) stay focused.

You do relize that what DPrival78 provided links to is the truth don't you?

America was in talks with the taliban about running pipelines through afganistan to pakistan. Which is why you don't do much to pakistan.

jlew24asu wrote:

the saudi government didnt support the attack. the disowned bin laden years ago. saudi arbia has alot of extremist in their country but the government supports us. are you suggested we should have gone after saudi arbia? what sense would that make. I would love to see you bitch about bombing a country we were actually friends with.

And the innocent men, women and children of afganistan supported the attack did they?

Kann

Byrnzie wrote:

Carpet bombing a soveriegn nation and killing countless tens of thousands of innocents was doing the world a favour? How so?
Al Queda are now stronger than ever and Bin Laden is still alive. Afghanistan is now a mess with tribal groups controlling the country and the Taliban regrouped and strengthened.
And it's not 'Irak', it's 'Iraq'.

You'll notice I said "getting rid of the taliban" not "carpet bombing". The taliban regime was a sucky thing we should never have helped in the first place.
Now the means used to do it, a non prepared blitzkrieg was even stupider for the reasons you stated, and for many more like the loss of control of the opium trade (which was done by the taliban).
And I say Irak because that's how it's written in my language and I sometimes forget the proper english spelling, sorry!

jlew24asu

spiral out wrote:

You do relize that what DPrival78 provided links to is the truth don't you?

America was in talks with the taliban about running pipelines through afganistan to pakistan. Which is why you don't do much to pakistan.

yea I know case closed. bush orchestrated the attack on 9/11 which gave us a reason to invade Afghanistan. got it

spiral out wrote:

And the innocent men, women and children of afganistan supported the attack did they?

no they certainly didnt. had their leaders not allowed el queda to attack us, they would have just been able to live under the torture and death of the tailban.

Open

jlew24asu wrote:

we obliterate them? what benefit did we get from arming the mujhadeen against the soviets? 2 things. stop afgah suffering and help defeat our cold war enemy indirectly. who did we "obliterate" after the soviets left?

its young people like you who know nothing about history prior to 2003 that make it difficult to have discussions.

So Afghanistan is not suffering now? We didnt give a shit about Afghanistan suffering our motive was to stop the Soviets.

That's what this thread is about, how people just blindly accept what they're told. Not many people take just a second of time to look behind the curtain.

Byrnzie

Kann wrote:

You'll notice I said "getting rid of the taliban" not "carpet bombing". The taliban regime was a sucky thing we should never have helped in the first place.
Now the means used to do it, a non prepared blitzkrieg was even stupider for the reasons you stated, and for many more like the loss of control of the opium trade (which was done by the taliban).
And I say Irak because that's how it's written in my language and I sometimes forget the proper english spelling, sorry!

Fair enough.

jlew24asu

Open wrote:

So Afghanistan is not suffering now? We didnt give a shit about Afghanistan suffering our motive was to stop the Soviets.

are afgans better off with the taliban in power? do you know anything about them?

our motive was twofold. stop the soviets and help the afgans. of course we could and should have done a better job with the latter.

Open wrote:

That's what this thread is about, how people just blindly accept what they're told. Not many people take just a second of time to look behind the curtain.

and it's people like you who only believe america is genuinely bad with zero good intentions.

Open

jlew24asu wrote:

the saudi government didnt support the attack. the disowned bin laden years ago. saudi arbia has alot of extremist in their country but the government supports us. are you suggested we should have gone after saudi arbia? what sense would that make. I would love to see you bitch about bombing a country we were actually friends with.

How do you know this? The Saudis along with Israel have gained the most from this mess.

Open

jlew24asu wrote:

are afgans better off with the taliban in power? do you know anything about them?

our motive was twofold. stop the soviets and help the afgans. of course we could and should have done a better job with the latter.



and it's people like you who only believe america is genuinely bad with zero good intentions.

Nope i dont think we're bad with zero good intentions (i thought you were better then "people like you comments"). I just dont think our hands spotless.

jlew24asu

Open wrote:

Nope i dont think we're bad with zero good intentions (i thought you were better then "people like you comments"). I just dont think our hands spotless.

of course our hands arent spotless. far from it actually. but many of our intentions are good, something that is never mentioned.

DPrival78

jlew24asu wrote:

bush orchestrated the attack on 9/11 which gave us a reason to invade Afghanistan.

i never said bush orchestrated it. bush can't orchestrate a complete sentence.

jlew24asu

DPrival78 wrote:

i never said bush orchestrated it. bush can't orchestrate a complete sentence.

so who did then?

polaris

saudi arabia is probably the biggest funder of terrorist activities in the middle east ... they enjoy that luxury because the US and the house of Saud are tied at the hip ... ever since they got cozy with the states and the US ensured their supply of oil - both sides turn a blind eye to the atrocities ...

the reality of the situation is that the US has no business in the middle east - they are only there to protect the interests of big corporations ... that is all - it's all about imperialism and money ...

spiral out

jlew24asu wrote:

yea I know case closed. bush orchestrated the attack on 9/11 which gave us a reason to invade Afghanistan. got it.

Where does it say anything about bush ocestrating the attacks?
Some how i am getting from this reply that you don't get it.

jlew24asu wrote:

no they certainly didnt. had their leaders not allowed el queda to attack us, they would have just been able to live under the torture and death of the tailban.

No leaders allowed Al Queda to do anything. They planned thier attacks not the goverment.

You also don't relise that Afganistan was not always run by the taliban and was indeed a decent country until the CIA decided that it was not what they wanted and went about funding the the fundementalists to try and get back at russia.